[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar Alias Rupesh Kumar Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
28.04.2026
poonam
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
POONAM
2026.04.29 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214
CRM-M-5176-2026
Decided on : 28.04.2026
Rakesh Kumar alias Rupesh Kumar alias Rukesh Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
(earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during
the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of
First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Rakesh Kumar 33 04.04.2024 20 of Tappa Barnala
alias Rupesh NDPS Act Mandi
Kumar alias
Rukesh Kumar
2. On 20.04.2026, following order was passed:-
" From the possession of petitioner, there is a recovery of 1 Kg 300
grams of Sulpha (Charas).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false case has been
planted against him. He further submits that though the allegations are yet to
be determined by the trail Court at final stage of the trial, however,
proceedings before the trial Court are not moving at required pace. Reply
dated 24.03.2026 on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed in the Court
today. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at
appropriate place.
Learned State counsel refers paragraph No. 12 of the status report
and submits that all the prosecution witnesses already stand examined,
therefore, there is no ground to consider the plea of bail at the stage of fag end
of the trial.
As per order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-31287- 2024
(Annexure P-2), at that time only one prosecution witness was left to be
examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to page 15 and submits
that contention was wrongly addressed before the Court and as a matter of
fact prosecution evidence is still going on and next date fixed before the trial
Court is 24.04.2026.
List again on 28.04.2026."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is inside
jail for the last more than a custody period of 02 years and 23 days. He further
submits that petitioner is 32 years of age and is the sole bread earner of his
family and has no prior record of involvement in any other case of a similar
nature. Further argues that, as argued by the State on previous date of hearing,
claiming that almost all the witnesses have been examined, is incorrect,
and the process of recording of the statements of the witnesses is still going
on. In support of his contention, counsel produces the copies of the orders
dated 19/2/2026, 6/3/2026 and 21/4/2026 which clearly demonstrates that
none of the witnesses were examined on those specific dates.
4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody
certificate dated 27.04.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Registry
to tag the same at appropriate place.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has
already undergone 02 years and 23 days period inside jail and there is no other
case registered against him.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds
substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by
observing that though 1 kg 300 grams of sulpha (charas) has been recovered
from the petitioner but he has already remained inside jail for a period
exceeding 2 years and without proving of charges beyond reasonable doubt,
petitioner cannot be detained inside jail for an indefinite period. Moreover,
being a first time offender this Court is of the opinion that petitioner should be
afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate himself in the society.
6. In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations
levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, this Court
deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other
case.
7. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat
and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or
indirectly.
8. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial
Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the
basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in
accordance with law.
9. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found
indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be
cancelled.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
28.04.2026
Poonam
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
