[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devraj @ Debu vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2026
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
232 CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 17.03.2026
Devraj @Debu
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.214 dated
04.11.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 15(b),
25, 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act', Police Station Sardulgarh,
District Mansa.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being when a chance
recovery of contraband took place from the possession of Devraj @Debu
(petitioner herein), who was on the motorcycle, intercepted during the
course of patrolling by a police party. As per prosecution, 20 kg of Poppy
Husk was recovered from his possession.
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
performed, and further investigation taken up.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a
decision: -
(i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of
almost four months;
(ii) that the quantity of contraband recovered from the
possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of 'non-
commercial quantity', which is marginally above the upper
threshold fixed for small quantity of Poppy Husk, i.e. 20 kg,
and for below against the lower limit of commercial
quantity, i.e. 50 kg;
(iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
(iv) that although this is the second petition for bail, but the first
petition of bail filed by the petitioner was not decided on
merit. Rather, it was dismissed as withdrawn and from the
date of dismissal of first petition, charge has been framed;
(v) that co-accused of the petitioner has already been accorded
the benefit of bail;
(vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
(vii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
(viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
(ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses; and
(x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in trial.
9. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also
relevant, wherein it has been observed that "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
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
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. 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".
10. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.
In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
11. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are
bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and
for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
12. 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 mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
13. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
CRM-M-13589-2026 (O&M)
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession
shall be subject to following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
17.03.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
