[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar @ Raju vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2026
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 5 years, 9 months and 25 days
days. He alleges false implication.
cation.
His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co
co-accused
Rupesh,, who was also implicated on the statement of Mohan Lal, who has
since been granted by this Court, vide order dated 10.05.2022, Annexure
P-15.
15. Further, co-accused
co accused Ved Ram alias Bed Ram also stands released on
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.01.21 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
bail vide order dated 19.01.2026, after being in custody for 4 years 9
months and 26 days, as also co-accused Akashdeep Sharma @ Kala,
Krishan Kumar Arora and Sakeel. The alleged recovery was effected from
Gurlal Singh and Balwinder Kumar, though from a godown, with which
the petitioner is not connected in any manner. Though trial is at the
advanced stage, however, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has
be filed by co-accused Rajinder Kumar @ Raju, reply of which is
awaited. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case, wherein he is on bail,
vide order, Annexure P-18. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 20.01.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 5 years, 9 months and 25 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from co-accused, as
also pursuant to the disclosure statement of the petitioner from a godown.
However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage
of the case; co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being
on bail in other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.01.21 19:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 years, 9 months
and 25 days; on bail in other case; co-accused are on bail; defence
evidence is yet to commence; the trial is likely to take a considerable time,
further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present
petition is allowed.
8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail,
subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and
shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial
Court and not change the same till conclusion of
trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change
either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with
prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose
any other condition, as deemed appropriate
while releasing the petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and
would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the
trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
