Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaibir vs State Of Haryana on 7 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CRM-M-10705-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 CRM-M-10705-2025
Date of decision: 07.03.2025
Jaibir
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
Relief Sought
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439
Cr.P.C seeking the concession of grant of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR
No.125 dated 11.06.2020 under Sections 17/27-A/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at
P.S Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
2. The Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
narrated in the instant FIR reads as under :-
” To, the SHO, Police Station Nathusari Chopta, Jai Hind. Today,
I, SI, am present at CIA, Sirsa that secret informer came present at
CIA Staff, Sirsa and gave information to me that Dinesh Kumar
son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ward No.6, Mandir Chowk Tukriya,
District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, who supplies opium and
today he will come for supply in Chopta by carrying opium in his
white coloured vehicle ERTIGA bearing No.MP14CB-3749 from
Madsaur, if check post is setup near Saim drain Fefana Road, they
can be apprehended with Opium and I treated the secret
information as true and reliable and written notice under Section
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01 42 NDPS ACT and sent to Sh. Jagdish Kumar Kajla, Deputy
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 2Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad by hand through EHC
Hansraj No.982. I, SI alongwith HC Sandeep Kumar, 772; HC
Vinod Kumar, 1207; CT. Sunil Kumar, 898; C. Sunil Kumar, THE
976 alongwith my personal Laptop including printer in an official
vehicle bearing No.HR-24X-4306 driven by EHC Harish Kumar,
480 proceeded for Fefana Road, near Saim Drain, Village Jamaal
in connection with Nakabandi and reached on Fefana Road, near
Sam Nala, Village Jamaal and started the checking. After waiting
for some time, a white coloured vehicle bearing No.MP14CB-3749
Make ERTIGA was seen coming from the side of Nohar and I, SI
signed the vehicle to stop, then driven was just turning his vehicle
towards Nohar, then by putting official vehicle in front of the
official vehicle, I, SI with the help of accompanied officials
captured the vehicle driver including the vehicle and asked his
name and address, then the driver told his name as Dinesh Kumar
son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ward No.6, Mandir Chowk, Turkiya,
District Mandsaur Madhya Pradesh, similar to the secret
information. On checking the vehicle, white coloured vehicle
bearing No. MP14CB-3749 Make ERTIGA, white in colour was
found and I, SI on having suspicion of having some intoxicant
substance with the vehicle driver and in the vehicle, a notice under
Section 50 of NDPS ACT was given to Dinesh Kumar son of Mangi
Lal, resident of Ward No.6, Mandir Chowk Turkiya, District
Manusaur, Madhya Pradesh that I, Satbir Singh, 488/Sirsa, CIA
Staff, Sirsa inform you Dinesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident
of Ward No.6, Mandir Chowk Turkiya, District Mandsaur, Madhya
Pradesh through this notice that I have suspicion of having some
intoxicant substance with you and in your vehicle No.MP14CB-
3749 Make ERTIGA, white in colour, therefore, you and your
vehicle are necessary to be searched. You have legal right that any
nearest Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer can be called at the
spot for your search as well as search of your vehicle or you can
be produced before it including your vehicle for search. Make it
clear. In his reply to the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act,
driver Dinesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ward No.6,
Mandir Chowk Turkiya, District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh got
recorded that I, Dinesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident of WardMANOJ KUMAR
No.6, Mandir Chowk Turkiya, District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 3has read and understood the notice given by you, I was to get
myself and my vehicle bearing No.MP14CB-3749 Make ERTIGA,
white in colour searched through some Gazetted Officer. Gazetted
Officer be called at the spot. Above named accused and witnesses
respectively signed the notice and reply to notice printed out
through the printer and I, SI from my person mobile contacted Sh.
Jagdish Kumar Kajla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad
on his Mob. No.88140-11604 and apprised regarding the facts and
requested to reach at the spot. The time is about 1.00 PM and after
wait, Sh. Jagdish Kumar Kajla, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ellenabad including his staff and official vehicle reached at the
spot and time is about 1.40 PM. 4-5 passersby were asked to join
as witness, but all of them while expressing their respective
helplessness left from the spot. As per the instructions of Sh.
Jagdish Kumar Kajla, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ellenabad, I, SI conducted the formal search of vehicle driver,
Dinesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ward No.6, Mandir
Chowk, Turkiya, District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, then no
intoxicant substance from the body person was recovered. Then
formal search of vehicle bearing No.MP14CB-3749 Make ERTIGA
white in colour was conducted, then under the seat of the vehicle,
2 transparent polythene carry bags were found, whose mouth was
opened and checked, then from both the polythene carry bags
opium was recovered. The recovered opium was weighed with the
computerized weighing scale then weight of one of the polythene
came to 6 Kilograms including the transparent carry bag and
weight of another polythene carry bag came to 5 Kilograms
including the polythene carry bag, which comes to total 11
Kilograms. Both the polythene carry bag of the recovered opium
were put in two separate plastic boxes and prepared the separate
parcels and I sealed the parcel with seal my SS and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad sealed with his seal JK.
Parcels of opium and vehicle No.MP14CB-3749 Make ERTIGA,
white in colour including original RC were taken into Possession
through property seizure memo as evidence. The accused and the
witnesses respectively signed the property witnesses seizure memo
and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad attested the same.
MANOJ KUMAR
I handed over my seal after use and after keeping sample to the
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 4Witness HC Sandeep Kumar, 772 and the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Ellenabad kept his seal with himself. On asking
regarding the above recovered opium, above accused Dinesh
Kumar told that I have bought the recovered opium from Samrat
son of Ramlal Dhangar, resident of Doubra Police Station
Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, MP and I had to give the
recovered opium to Jaibir son of Sahab Singh, resident of Darba
Kalan. So, above accused Dinesh Kumar by keeping total 11
Kilograms opium and Samrat son of Ramlal
Dhangar, resident of Doubra, Police Station Narayangarh, District
Mandsaur, MP by selling and Jaibir son of Sahab Singh, resident
of Darba Kalan by calling the recovered opium have committed
the offence under Section 17/27A/61/85 of NDPS Act. Therefore,
present writing is being sent to the Police Station by hand through
Ct. Sunil Kumar, 898 for registration of FIR, after registering a for
case, FIR number be informed and special reports of the present
case be sent to the senior officers. Other investigation officer be
sent at the spot for further investigation of the case. I, SI alongwith
accompanied officials and accused and case property, am present
at the spot. At in the area of village Jamal, Fefan Road, near Saim
Nala. Sd SI Satbir Singh 488/Sirsa. CIA Sirsa dated 11.06.2020
AT-3.00 PM, Mob.No.94164-89788. On receipt of writing in the
Police Station, FIR No.125 dated 11.06.2020, under Section
17/27A/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Nathusari Chopta has
been registered and copy of police file including original writing
has been sent to the place I/O at the place of occurrence By hand
through arrived and SI Om Parkash, 953, Incharge, Police Post
Jamaal has been informed through phone for reaching at the spot
for further action and special reports of the present case are being
sent to the Duty Magistrate and Senior Officers through e-mail
ID.”
Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case as no direct recovery has been effected
from him. Name of the petitioner has surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 5
accused Dinesh Kumar and that in fact Dinesh Kumar had purchased the
contraband which was to be supplied to the present petitioner. It is submitted that
the petitioner is behind bars for the last 02 years, 06 months and 13 days and no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as
conclusion of trial would take long time as only 07 prosecution witnesses out of
27 have been examined.
On behalf of the State
4. The 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 02 years, 06 months and 13 days. Challan was presented in this case on
03.08.2021, charges were framed on 21.09.2021 and 07 prosecution witnesses out
of total 27 have been examined.
Analysis
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that nothing is to be recovered
from the present petitioner coupled with the fact that no incriminating material
with regard to recovery of the alleged contraband has been put up before this
Court and that the petitioner has suffered sufficient incarceration for almost 02
years, 06 months and 13 days, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the
conclusion of trial will take a considerable amount of time for which the petitioner
cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period. Further, 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:-
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 6
“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. 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
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and officer and was not absconding or not appearing when
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 7required 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 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 ReInhuman 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
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 8also 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. 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 as 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
the 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.
Decision
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner
is hereby directed to be released on regular bail under 483 of BNSS, 2023 on him
furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby
MANOJ KUMAR
allowed.
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order
CRM-M-10705-2025 9
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
( SANDEEP MOUDGIL )
JUDGE
07.03.2025
manoj
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
MANOJ KUMAR
2025.03.08 06:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order