Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mani Sabharwal Alias Money Sabharwal vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
CRM-M-14307-2025 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14307-2025
DECIDED ON: 21.03.2025
MANI SABHARWAL ALIAS MONEY SABHARWAL
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vipan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time
under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case
FIR No. 91 dated 22.08.2024, under Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, Police
Station Division No. 2, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"S.H.O. Police Station Division No: 2, Jalandhar. Today, I, ASI,
along ASI Malkit Singh-515, HC Lalit Kumar No.-491, SR/CT-
Surinder Pal-2294, CT-Pawan Suman-1052 and Govt. Passenger
Vehicle No: PB65-AV-5603, its Driver-Jaspal Singh-1758 and
with Laptop-Printer, was present at Y-Point Harnam Dass Pura,
Jalandhar in connection with picket and patrolling and then from
the side of Kapurthala Chowk, one clean-shaven young man was
seeing coming on foot and on seeing the police party, he suddenly
perplexed and started turning back. I, ASI, overpowered him on
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
the basis of suspicion with the help of co- employees and asked
his name and address. He told his name as Sunny Vehmi Son of
Sunil, resident of Geeta Colony, Gali No: 6, Kala Sanghia Road,
Jalandhar, at present, resident of House No: NA246, Kishanpura,
Jalandhar. Upon this, I, ASI, served Notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act to
the above said Sunny Vehmi that there is suspicion of having some
objectionable narcotic substance in your possession and due to
this reason, your search has to be conducted. You have legal right
that you can get your search conducted from any Magistrate
Sahab or any Gazetted officer. He said that I have faith on you
and you can conduct my search. Upon this, before conducting
search of the above said Sunny Vehmi, the persons passing nearby
were asked to join in the police party, but every person expressed
his helplessness and nobody was become ready to join in the
police party. Upon this, I, ASI, in the presence of co-employees,
conducted search of the above said Sunny Vehmi under custody.
Then from right pocket of the lower worn by him, heroin was
recovered from a plastic transparent envelope of white colour and
on weighing, the said recovered heroin was found 100 Grams.
The recovered heroin was put in a separate plastic box and case
property parcel was prepared. I, ASI, sealed the case property
parcel of heroin of weight 100 grams with my seal bearing words
GS and sample seal was prepared separately. After use, the seal
was entrusted to ASI Malkit Singh-515. The above said Sunny
Vehmi, by keeping 100 grams heroin in his possession has
committed offence u/s 21/61/85 of NDPS Act. Upon this, after
writing the information, the same is being sent to the police
station by hand through CT Pawan Suman No: 1052 for
registering the case. After registering the case FIR Number may
be informed. After issuing special reports, the same may be sent
to the Illaqa Magistrate Sahib and senior officers. I, ASI, along
with co-officials, is busy in investigation at the spot. Today, in the
area of Y Point Haram Dass Pura, Jalandhar AT 09:55 PM Sd/-
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
ASI Gurmel Singh No. 2411 C.I.A. Staff, Commissionerate
Jalandhar. Dated 22.08.2024.
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused Sunny Vehmi from whom the 100 grams of heroin was recovered and
he was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-
4) passed by the trial Court. He submits that as per the story of the prosecution 50
grams of heroin was recovered of the present petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of
the present petition stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is
involved in other cases as well.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the alleged recovery of
contraband from the petitioner is 50 grams of heroin and main accused Sunny
Vehmi from the 100 grams of heroin was effected, has already been enlarged
on bail by the trial Court. Moreover, the custody period undergone by the
petitioner i.e., 6 months and 22 days, wherein investigation is complete,
challan stands presented on 19.10.2024, charges are yet to be framed and
thereafter 13 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. This Court is sanguine
of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain
period, wherein "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" and it would also
violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under
Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by
this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
131. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant
of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a
prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may
wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely
the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the
right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating
officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of
being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to
consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the
judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or
has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including
maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding
in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by
this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons,
2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments
(R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered
in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE
609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that
decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was
held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference
was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad
356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-
old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is
almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter
and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic
and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused
as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this,
reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials
should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is
concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in
CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of
Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039111
Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting
bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course
of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone
and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such
eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of
pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the
petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
21.03.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
