Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninderjit Singh Alias Maninderjeet … vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979
CRM-M-15688-2025 -1-
226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15688-2025
DECIDED ON: 23.04.2025
MANINDERJIT SINGH @ MANINDERJEET SINGH
@ MANNU
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: None.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association and Bar
Council of Punjab & Haryana High Court have decided “No work day” for
today i.e., 23.04.2025 on account of sudden demise of Sh. Bhupinder Singh
Rathore, oldest member of the Bar Council.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 Of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 40 Dated 07.04. 2024, (Annexure P-1)
under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 (offence under Sections 25
and 29 NDPS Act have been added later on) registered at P.S. Anandpur
Sahib, District Rupnagar.
3. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“Copy of ruga, Jai Hind, Today, I, ASI alongwith ASI Raj
Kumar 901/R, C. Sandeep Kumar 582/R, P.H.G. Parmod
Kumar through a Government vehicle No.PB-65BF-2068,1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979CRM-M-15688-2025 -2-
whose driver C.Raj Kumar 192/R, in connection with
patrolling and checking of suspicious persons, while doing
towards the Bhakra Canal Patri Ganguwal to Bikarpur side,
while conducting the nakabandi and started checking of the
vehicles, near the gate of Patri, thenthe time would be about
7.10 pm. During checking a car bearing NO.PB-12-s-0301,
colour white came from Bikapur side, then they tried to turn
back the car after seeing the police party, due to no space to
turn the car, then I ASI with the help – of fellow officials,
apprehended the four persons from the car and enquired their
names and address. The driver of the car disclosed his name
as Maninderjit Singh alias Manu son of Dalbir Singh resident
of Power Colony, H.No.03 Type-II, Sri Anandpur Sahib, the
person who was sitting on the conductor seat of the car
disclosed his name as Kirandeep alias Kinnu son of
Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Village Mangewal, the boy who
was sitting on the rear seat, disclosed his name as Davinder
Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of Shampura, New
Colony, Rupnagar and more person sitting on the rear seat
tried to escape after opening the door of the car, who fall on
the road while he was running, he was apprehended while
fell.• down, he was got injury on his head, he disclosed his
name as Jaswinder Singh alias Jass son of Surinder Singh,
resident of Village Dher. Then I, ASI checked the above said
car, and on checking, a polythene lying near the lever of the
car was found, it seems containing some intoxicant powder
inside. On enquiry from the said person, but they failed to
give any satisfactory reply. Upon which, Maninderjit Singh
alias Monu, Kirandeep Singh alias Kinnu, Davinder Singh
and Jaswinder Singh alias Jass above said, by keeping
intoxicant powder in inside car, have committed offence under
Section 22/61/85 NDPS Act, so the ruga is being sent for
registration of FIR under Section 22/61/85 NDPS Act against
the above said persons, through HC Sandeep Kumar 582/R to
the police Station. In this regard, information was given on
telephone to the SHO of the police Station to send the
competent officer to reach on the spot. After registration of2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979CRM-M-15688-2025 -3-
FIR, case number be intimated. Information should be given
to higher officer and control room Rupnagar through
wireless.”
4. It has been pleaded in the petition that as per the prosecution
story, total 255 grams of intoxicant powder containing Psychotropic
Substance ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’ and ‘DiacetyImorphine’ was recovered
from the dash board of the alleged vehicle, which was being driven by the
present petitioner and the said alleged contraband is marginally over and
above the commercial quantity.
5. As per the custody certificate produced in Court by the Pervi
Officer, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year and
12 days and the petitioner is involved in two other case.
6. Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone by
the petitioner i.e. 01 year and 12 days added with the facts that the quantity
of alleged contraband is marginally over and above the commercial quantity;
investigation is complete, wherein after framing of charges on 28.10.2024
out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have been examined and
05 witnesses have been given up, which is suffice for this Court to infer that
the conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, this Court is of the
considering view that detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period would serve no purpose.
7. Taking into consideration the following orders passed by the
Coordinate Benches of this Court wherein the recovery from the accused
was marginally over and above the commercial quantity for the respective
contraband in each case, the Courts have taken a lenient view while granting
bail to the accused therein i.e. Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979
CRM-M-15688-2025 -4-
Punjab, CRM-M-7857-2022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh versus
State of Punjab, CRM-M-46244-2022 decided on 19.01.2023, Hari Yadav
@ Haiya versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-37645-2021)’ decided on
11.11.2022, ‘Jang Kanwar Versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-53415-2021)’
decided on 19.01.2022, ‘Shankar Prashad Chanau Versus The State of
Punjab, CRM-M-24090-2020, decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar
Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-17021-2021, decided on 31.08.2021,
Salim Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-42436-2020, decided on
24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-3055-2021,
decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Gopi Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-
41039-2019, Singh decided on 26.02.2020, Dalbara Singh Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-47880-2022 decided on 16.01.2023’, and Vivek Watts
versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-13791-2022 decided on 15.02.2023.
8. 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.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979CRM-M-15688-2025 -5-
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, 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 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979CRM-M-15688-2025 -6-
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 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
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979
CRM-M-15688-2025 -7-
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him furnishing bail and
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051979
CRM-M-15688-2025 -8-
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
12. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
13. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
14. The Jail Authority concerned is directed to intimate the said
order to the petitioner-accused.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
23.04.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 05:43:50 :::
[ad_1]
Source link