Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh Alias Kudda vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
CRM-M-14330-2025 -1-
218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14330-2025
DECIDED ON: 21.03.2025
PARGAT SINGH ALIAS KUDDA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Amarjot Sangha, Advocate
for the petitioner. (through Hybrid Mode).
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS,
2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR NO. 10 dated
30.01.2023 Under Section 22 of NDPS Act, P.S. Mulepur, District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR read as under:-
"Nakal Rukka Chief Officer Police Station Mulepur, Jai Hind,
Today I/SI along with ASI Man Singh No843, ASI Kirtan Singh
No 164 , C. Sipahi Kulwinder Singh No 720, PHG Salmadin No
259 along with laptop printer was present on government Balero
Number PB-23T-3154 were patrolling area on Bahad Bridge, Sua
Nalini to check bad elements. Then around 11.30 am, from Bus
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
Stand Roorkee side, a hair cut young fellow on foot was seen. In
his right hand a waxy black polythene plastic heavy was seen. He
panicked on seeing the police party and started to turn back. I/SI
along with the other police party overpowered him and asked him
his name and address. On being asked he said his name is Pargat
Singh/ Kudda, son of Balveer Singh, Resident of village Roorkee,
Thana Mulepur, Fatehgarh Sahib. On this I/SI told him his name,
and designation the same of others with him were told. I/SI told
him I have suspicion on you that you are carrying intoxicating
substances in the waxy black polythene held in your right hand. I
want to search you but you have the right that you can get the
search conducted by the Magistrate or Gazetted officer who can
be called on the spot or you can be taken to him. Then Pargat
Singh on knowing his rights gave this a thought and said that you
can do the search. As per Section 50 of the NDPS Act Notice was
given on the spot on which Pargat Singh put his left thumb
impression and ASI Man Singh and ASI Kirtan Singh signed as
witness. Then I/SI told Pargat Singh that he could take search of
me and the police party before giving the search of his polythene
bag. He thought about it and said that you are police officers and
I have faith on you and you can search the polythene. On which
he put his left thumb impression on Fard sehmati talasi police
party'. ASI Man Singh and Kirtan Singh as witnesses. Then I/SI
ASI tried to get some private witnesses to join the police party no
one agreed to be a witness as every one expressed their own
compulsions and kept leaving from the spot. Then the polythene
which was held in right hand was opened and checked and it was
found 126 leaves of Dicyclomine HCL, Tramdol HCL,
Acetaminophen capsules Pyeevon Spas Plus were found. In each
leave 8/8 total 1008 intoxicating capsules were found. On each
leave B.No. LYEC-120 MFG 07/2021 Exp 06/2023 was written.
On being asked Pargat Singh @Kuda could not produce any bill
or permit. The capsules were put back in black waxy polythene
and a parcel was prepared. On the parcel I/SI put seal JS and
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
then he prepared sample separately. Then the seal stamp was
handed over to ASI Kirtan Singh. The police took both in their
possession under 'fard baramdgi' on which the left thumb
impression of Pargat Singh was taken and ASI Man Singh and
ASI Kirtan Singh attested as witnesses. The Pargat Singh @ Kuda
by keeping the 126 leaves of Pyeevon Spas Plus have committed
offence under section 22-61-85 NDPS Act. At this a rukka/writing
is being sent to the police station through HC Salamudin no 259
for registration of the case. After registration of the case the
number be informed. Officers and control room and wireless
message to be given.I SI along with others are investigating. -
Bahad Bridge,sua Nalini, time 12.45 pm"
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery from the
petitioner is a result of a purported "chance recovery" of 1008 capsules of
Pyeevon Spas Tablets, wherein total alleged recovery of tramadol salt amounts
to only 50.4 grams, which is non-commercial in nature. He further submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2023, wherein after framing of
charges on 22.08.2023 only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far out of the total 12.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present
petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is
involved in other cases as well.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 2
years, 1 month and 19 days, wherein investigation is complete, challan stands
presented on 12.07.2023, charges have been framed on 22.08.2023 and out of
total 12 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far, meaning
thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, it is a fundamental
postulate of law that "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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
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 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,
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039133
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in
Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 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:039133
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
