Punjab-Haryana High Court
Justine vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-64119-2024 (O&M) 1
107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64119-2024 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 07.11.2025
JUSTINE ... PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Tarun Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S.Arora, DAG Punjab.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition
praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.141 dated 24.08.2022 under
Sections 21C/29/61/85 of NDPS Act 1985, (Sections 31 of NDPS Act and
Section 201 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Kartarpur,
District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the police while patrolling
on 24.08.2022 when reached near Kartarpur bus stand, they saw two young
man standing. They were having kit bag with them. On suspicion, both were
stopped by the police and on asking, they disclosed their names to be Ajit
Kumar and Rupesh Kumar. They were suspected to be carrying some
contraband in the kit bag being carried by them. The search of both the
individuals and the kit bag carried by them was conducted. On conducting
the search of Ajit Kumar, 500 gms of heroin was recovered, whereas from
the search of left side of pocket of trouser of Rupesh Kumar, 120 gms of Ice
was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding possession of
1 of 5
the same and thus, on the registration of the FIR, both were arrested. The
investigation commenced and the samples were sent to FSL. During
investigation, they made a disclosure statement about the petitioner for his
involvement in the present case. Thus, the petitioner was also arrayed as an
accused. As the petitioner was already behind the bars in FIR No. 59 dated
09.04.2019 under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police
Station Bhog Pur, he was arrested in the present case on 27.08.2022. On
completion of investigation, challan was presented. On framing the charges,
the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the learned Special Court at
Jalandhar praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the
sides, the same was declined vide order dated 28.02.2024. Aggrieved, the
petitioner approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing
CRM-M-32785-2024. The same was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2024.
Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of
bail by way of filing the present petition.
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case
in a frivolous manner. Admittedly, the petitioner was already behind the bars
at the time of occurrence in the present case, wherein he was facing the
prosecution in FIR No. 59 dated 09.04.2019. He submits that the petitioner
has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure
statement of co-accused Ajit Kumar, from whom the alleged contraband has
been recovered. It is submitted that when the petitioner was admittedly
behind the bars, his complicity in the present case is totally false and
frivolous. He submits that though the petitioner is behind the bars in the
present case since 27.08.2022. However, as he has been convicted in FIR
2 of 5
No. 59 dated 09.04.2019 by awarding a sentence of 12 years. Hence, his
custody in the present case has been shown to be 'nil' in the custody
certificate. It is submitted that the sentence of the petitioner in FIR No. 59
dated 09.04.2019 has already been suspended vide order dated 14.05.2024 in
CRM-49851-2023 in CRA-D-52-2021. He thus, submits that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves concession of bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions
made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is a
habitual offender. He submits that though the petitioner was behind the bars
in FIR No. 59 dated 09.04.2019, however, his complicity was established
during the investigation in the present case. He has submitted on instructions
that out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till
date. He submits that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, no
case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. He has placed on record
the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is inferred that petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case
on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Admittedly, the
petitioner was already behind the bars in FIR No. 59 dated 09.04.2019 at the
time of occurrence in the present case. A perusal of the custody certificate
shows his undertrial period to be 'nil'. The custody certificate has been
provided by the jail authorities that his undertrial period is from 31.08.2022
till date but the same has been adjusted as per the judgment dated
17.03.2016 passed in CRM-M-21934-2015 titled as 'Tejinder Singh @ Teja
vs. State of Punjab.
6. Needless to say that the speedy trial of every accused is a
3 of 5
fundamental right. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only
after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led
by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself
from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case
will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both
the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned
counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar
Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem
Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC
695 has held as under:
"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not
be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot
be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is
part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to
public confidence in the administration of justice."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated
03.07.2024 in 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024', has held that howsoever serious a
crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution
of India.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
4 of 5
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
10. It is being clarified that in case the petitioner does not furnish
bail/surety bonds within a period of one week from today, his custody will
not be counted in the present case after one week.
11. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
07.11.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
Janki JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
