Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
CRM-M-12045-2025 -1-
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12045-2025
DECIDED ON: 25.03.2025
MANGAL SINGH AND ANR
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the second
time under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking grant of Regular Bail to the Petitioners in case FIR No. 95 dated
02.07.2024 registered at Police Station: Dina Nagar, District: Amritsar
Gurdaspur, Punjab for the offenses punishable under Sections 20(b) and 27-
A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Annexure
P-1).
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"TO SHO dated 1.07.2023. 1 ASI including ASI Harjit Singh
442, CT Gagandeep 270, CT Gagandeep Singh 279 on our
government vehicle No. PB 65 BG 9224 were patrolling in
connection with the checking of miscreants and vehicles, and
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
when we reached Sugar Mill Paniar National Highway Naka,
where HC Manpreet Singh 274 and PHG Surjan Singh 350,
who had already posted for Naka in front of Sugar Mill
Paniar, also joined the police party and started checking
vehicles coming from the Pathankot side While checking in,
on July 2, 2024, at around 1:10 AM from the Pathankot side,
a white Swift car with the number DL5 CJ2780 was seen
coming. The person driving the car suddenly panicked upon
seeing the police blockade, slowed down the car, stopped it,
and started turning the car backward. I saw that there were
four men inside the car, and they were apprehended. The
driver of the car revealed his name as Sonu Singh, son of
Narinder Singh, a resident of village Jagatpur police station
in Chabal district, Taran Taran. The person sitting next to the
driver of the car revealed his name as Mangal Singh, son of
Satnam Singh.Persons sitting on the back seat disclosed their
names as Balraj Singh, son of Massa Singh, and Jobanjit
Singh, son of Jarnail Singh.I disclosed my name, identity, and
rank to the apprehended accused and gave notice to the
accused under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, stating that I
suspect there is something objectionable in your car. Thus,
you, along with the car in your possession, are to be
searched. You have the legal right to have your search
conducted by a Magistrate or a gazetted officer, to whom the
apprehended persons said that we have full confidence that
you can search our car. Further, consent memos were
prepared, and Sonu Singh, Mangal Singh, Balraj Singh, and
Jobanjit Singh signed the same. Before searching the said car,
an attempt was made to join a public witness, but everyone
stated their legitimate compulsion Whereupon, the ASI, in the
presence of fellow employees, conducted a search of the said
white car Swift No. DL 5 CJ 2780 in front of them. Then, from
the dashboard of the car, a black polythene was found
containing charas and 100/100 Indian currency notes. Upon
asking them about Indian currency notes, they disclosed that
the same were obtained by selling charas to customers. The
ASI weighed the recovered charas on the electronic weighing
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
scale, and the same came to be 408 grams, including the
weight of the polythene. Then, the recovered 100/100
currency notes were counted, and the same, being 250 in
number, the total recovered number came to Rs 25,000/-.
Thus, the accused, by keeping in their possession 401 grams
of charas and 25,000/- drug money, have prima facie
committed an offense punishable under Section 20(b) and
27(A) of the NDPS Act 1985."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners as whatever
recovery i.e. 401 grams of charas was effected that was from the dashboard
of the alleged vehicle, which was being driven by co-accused Sonu Singh,
who is the owner of the said vehicle. He further contends that the quantity of
recovered contraband is non-commercial in nature.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioners
are habitual offender as they are involved in multiple cases.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period suffered by the
petitioners i.e. 08 months and 21 days, 08 months and 22 days respectively;
nothing has been recovered from the present petitioners as whatever
recovery was effected that was from dashboard of the offending vehicle and
also the fact that the quantity of recovered contraband is non-commercial in
nature in addition to the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
presented to Court on 30.11.2024, charges have been framed on 27.02.2025
and out of total 19 prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far,
which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take
long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an
indefinite period.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is
an exception. 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,
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
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 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
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 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."
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
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 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 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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of
concession of bail.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040493
5. RELIEF:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioners are
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on their 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)
25.03.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
