Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Alias Gangu vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
CRM-M-5997-2025 -1-
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5997-2025
DECIDED ON: 24.03.2025
AMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS GANGU
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 grant
of regular bail in FIR No. 0104 dated 26.07.2023 registered under Section 22 of
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station
Kot Isse Khan, District Moga (Annexure P-1).
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Station Office P.S. Kot Isse Khan "Fateh" Today, I ASI with ASI
Charanjit Singh 94/Moga, HC Jagsir Singh 1295/Moga
(alongwith Laptop, Printers, Etc. ) constable City Jagdev Singh
1149/Moga on Government vehicles Tata Sumo vide bearing No.
PB-13-Q-6823 which HC. Lakhbir Singh 1161/Moga was driving
and left for patrolling and frisking. When around 11:05 AM police
party reached at Pakka Rasta leads to Village Singpura alias
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
Munan via Bus Stand Talwandi Nau Bahaar Kot Isse Khan, Zira
Road. Then the on right hand at the rice mill side two Non-Sikh
young man wear seen on the Kachha Rasta, for the purpose to
frisk then on suspicion ASI instruct to stop the vehicle and came
out from the vehicle then before the ASI those two young man
adroitly thrown away the transparent polythene in their hands
and Peon attempted to run towards the fodder fields, who were
nabbed by the ASI with the help of police party and on asking one
of them told his name Davinder Singh @ Loola son of Nirmal
Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Munava P.S. Kot
Isse Khan, District Moga and second young man told his name
Amandeep Singh alias Gangu son of Sukhwinder Singh son of
Darshan Singh resident of Village Munawa P.S. Kot Isse Khan,
District Moga. Then the ASI with the police party alongwith
Davinder Sing alias Loola and Amandeep Singh alias Gangu
came near the transparent polythene thrown by them, then the
loose intoxicant tablets of light orange colour were seen in both
of the transparent polythene. ASI stopped six commuters to
participate come public witness but everyone told their
helplessness hence no public witness could be engaged. ASI took
both transparent polythene, opened and counted the tablets and
recovered 35/35 loose intoxicant tablets of orange colour. ASI put
the light orange colour tablets in different transparent polythene
then in cloak of the cloth and prepared the pulanda and stamp.'
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 and the alleged recovery i.e., 70
tablets containing salt of Etizolam was not recovered from his conscious
possession. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2023,
wherein investigation is complete nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the
petitioner is behind bars for 1 year 7 months and 22 days.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer
opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that recovery of contraband in
the present is commercial in nature.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1
year, 7 months and 22 days and is not involved in any other case, as is evident
from the perusal of the custody certificate, meaning thereby he is a person of
clean antecedents added with the fact that investigation is complete, challan
stands presented on 13.10.2023, charges have been framed on 30.11.2023 and out
of total 12 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. This Court
is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no
useful 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
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 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
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 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039503
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.
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)
24.03.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
