Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -1-
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6049-2025
DECIDED ON: 04.03.2025
PARTAP SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the second
time under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 169 dated 14.07.2024, under Section 21 of NDPS Act
(Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS were added later on) and Section 25 of Arms
Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“To the Chief Officer, Police Station Navi Baradari,
Commissionerate Jalandhar “Jai Hind, “Today, I, SI, along with SI
Surjit Singh 2446, SR/CT Ranjit Singh 1821, SRICT Sukhdev Singh
3176, CT Sandeep Kumar 1005, CT Jugraj Singh 2135, carrying a
laptop, printer, and an investigation kit, set out in the government
vehicle PB 08-DG-9063 (Mahindra Bolero) driven by CT Lovepreet
Singh 2339, for patrolling and searching for suspicious persons and1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535CRM-M-6049-2025 -2-
drugs-related materials. We were present near BSF Chowk,
Jalandhar, when a civilian approached me (SI) and provided
information that within Jalandhar city, Jagrup Singh son of Tarlok
Singh, resident of village Jama Rae, District Tarn Taran, Bhavjot
Singh, son of Sarwan Singh, resident of village Dhogri, District
Jalandhar, Aman, resident of village Johal Di Wala, District Tarn
Taran and Happy, resident of Ladoo Kalsi Kala, District larn Taran,
are involved in the business of selling heroin, illegal arms, and
ammunition. They often call customers to deserted places and supply
heroin .and arms. Today, two of these individuals, Jagrup Singh son
of Tarlok Singh, resident of village Jama Rae, District Tarn Taran
and Bhavjot Singh son of Sarwan Singh, resident of village Dhogri,
District Jalandhar, are coming in a white Swift car (registration
number PB 63-D-6500) carrying heroin and arms, intending to sell
them near the railway station side and Guru Nanakpura Phatak
side. If patrolling is conducted in these deserted areas, both
individuals, along with the car, heroin, and • arms, can be caught.
Since the information is reliable and credible, it fulfils the
requirements of the crime under Sections 21-61-85 NDPS Act and
25/54/59 Arms Act. A report under the mentioned sections is being
written, and CT Jugraj Singh 2135 is being sent to the police station
for case registration. After the case is registered in the records, the
case number will be communicated. The concerned officers and the
control room may be informed.”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
at parity with co-accused Parvesh Kumar Goyal, who has already been
granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
18.10.2024 passed in CRM-M-51164-2024. He further contends that the
petitioner has been nominated in the instant FIR only on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused persons namely Jagroop Singh and
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -3-
Bhavjot Singh. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is a man of clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other
case.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner
has been specifically named by co-accused persons namely Jagroop Singh
and Bhavjot Singh.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 07 months
and 01 day for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the petitioner
is at parity with co-accused namely Parvesh Kumar Goyal, who has already
been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order
dated 18.10.2024 passed in CRM-M-51164-2024; the petitioner is not a
habitual offender as he is not involved in any other case, as is evident from
custody certificate in addition to the fact that investigation is complete,
challan stands presented to Court on 09.01.2025, charges are yet to be
framed and total 11 prosecution witnesses have been cited, which is suffice
for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take long time for
which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite
period.
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
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -4-
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. 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
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -5-
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 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
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -6-
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
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030535
CRM-M-6049-2025 -7-
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail 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 allowed.
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)
04.03.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 05:23:43 :::
[ad_1]
Source link