Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikramjit Singh Alias Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60741-2024
Date of Decision: January 23, 2025
VIKRAMJIT SINGH ALIAS VICKY ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sumeet S. Brar, Advocate for
Mr. Charanjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.21
dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22(c) and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, Punjab.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Today I SI along with C Harinder Singh 1155, C Gurmej
Singh 952, CC Lakhwinder Singh 2211, CC Swaranjeet 626, were
travelling on a government vehicle Scorpio No PB-65-BF-7691
which was being driven by PHG Kulwant Singh 33280 for the
purpose of patrolling and checking the suspected persons
suspected vehicles and were going from Railway Station Bathinda
to Mall Godown Road At about 1050 PM when the police party
was about 15-20 karam ahead of Police Station Bathinda.then in
the light of the vehicle two persons were seen standing in a
suspected condition nearby the gate of Mall Godown and out of
them one person was holding a transparent polythene in his hand
and the second person was seeing something in the said polythene
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 2and While seeing the light of the vehicle both the persons got
perplexed and tried to hide the polythene behind them and then 1
Sl on the basis of suspicion got stopped the vehicle and with the
help of the employees overpowered both the above said persons
along with the transparent polythene bag from which the
intoxicating were clearly visible In order to join the independent
witness on the spot the passersby were stopped but since it was an
odd time and was a winter season everybody shown their
helplessness and due to which the private witnesses were not got
joined and then I ASI got enquired the name and address from the
apprehended persons, and the person who was holding the
polythene in his hand disclose his name as Manoj Kumar S/o
Partap Singh Rio 103 D/25 Near Old Mandi Main Bazar
Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana and the second person as
Vikramjit Singh @Vicky S/o Inderjit Singh R/o H.No 13133 Street
No 8/5 Prajapat Colony, Namdev Road, Bathinda. On the opening
of the transparent polythene bag recovered from their possession
the bottles were clearly visible, on my checking total 25
intoxicating bottles were recovered from the said polythene bearing
ONEREX each weighing 100 ML plastic and all the recovered
bottles were bearing LIC No- MNB/09/742, Batch No ONCS-1911,
MFG Date- Feb-2023, EXPARTE Date-Jan 2025, MRP 150-00/RS
is written. The accused person Manoj Kumar and Vicky could not
produce any bill or permit at the spot for keeping in of the said
intoxicating and then I SI had put the recover 25 intoxicating
bottles in the same polythene and prepared separate bundle. The
above said bundle of the intoxicating bottles were sealed by me
bearing my words KS and the sample seal was prepared separately
and the seal after use was handed over to CC Harinder Singh
1155. Thereafter the recovered bundle of the intoxicating tablets
along with the samples seals were taken into police possession vide
separate memo. The of the witnesses were taken on the memo. In
this manner the Manoj Kumar and Vikramjit Singh @Vicky had
committed an offence Us 220/61/85 NDPS Act for keeping in the
possession of 25 bottles without any bill or license and thereby the
ruqa is hereby sent for the registration of the case against the
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 3above said Manoj Kumar and Vikramjit Singh @Vicky through CC
Swaranjeet Singh 626 to the Police Station Kotwali Bathinda. The
case be got registered and the case number be informed. The
special reports be issued and the concerned officers informed on
DCR I SI along with colleague employees are busy in the
investigation at the spot so SI Karamjit Singh 842/Bathinda CIA-
Bathinda dated 07/02/2024 at of Mall Godown Road Near Kotwali
Bathinda at 12:30 ΑΜ.’
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and alleged
recovery of 25 vials of ONEREX is not made from the conscious
possession of the petitioner and there is non-compliance of Section 50 of
NDPS Act, 1985. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody
since 07.02.2024.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 11 months 13 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail but is not in a position
to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
He informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on
30.04.2024 and charges have been framed on 14.05.2024 and there are
two other cases pending against the petitioner meaning thereby he is a
habitual offender.
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 4
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, considering the
fact that alleged recovery of 25 vials of ONEREX was not made from the
conscious possession of the petitioner and there is non-compliance of
Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985, it can be culled added with the fact that
the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 11 months
13 days, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one
should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable
doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on
30.04.2024, charges stands framed on 14.05.2024, out of 09 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this
Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable
time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period would solve no purpose.
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
SANGEETA home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 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. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by
a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 6or 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.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
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.
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 7
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.
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 the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-60741-2024 8
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
23.01.2025
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link