[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarvan Kumar Rana vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -1-
214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18755-2025
DECIDED ON: 21.04.2025
SARVAN KUMAR RANA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG Haryana
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. for grant
of Regular Bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 384 dated 07.11.2023 registered
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 at P.S. Sector-53, District
Gurugram, final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been presented only
for commission of offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in
the FIR reads as under :-
‘To Mr. SHO Sahib, Police Station Sector 53, District
Gurugram, Jai Hind Mr., today on 07-11-2023, I am present in
the area of Police Station Saraswati Kunj Sector 53, Gurugram
Crime Investigation after receiving information from the
informant of ASI Jitendra 832/GGM, Constable Gautam1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320CRM-M-18755-2025 -2-
4308/GGM that the informant informed that a person named
Ramakant son of Jamun Thakur, resident of village Fatehabad,
Police Station Paru, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar, who sells
narcotics in Saraswati Kunj Sector 53, and today he is in a
vehicle number BR06BR3940, white in color, and is trying to sell
the narcotic substance hashish. If a raid is conducted
immediately, the drug can be caught along with the person and as
the information was credible, I prepared a report under Section
42 NDPS and sent constable Gautam 4308/GGM to the police
station to inform the higher authorities. I also informed gazetted
officer Shri Dinesh Sharma, ETO and manager, police station
Sector 53 over the phone. I also informed a fellow employee
about the information and prepared a raiding party and I stopped
the passersbys and requested them to join the raid but everyone
expressed their helplessness and went to their destination and
due to lack of time, no notice could be given to anyone. I, along
with S.S. Sub-Inspector, fellow employee and confidential
informant, reached Saraswati Kunj Sector 53 where the
informant pointed towards the car number BR06BR3940 parked
there from about 30/40 steps ahead and told that a person named
Ramakant is sitting in this car. He has the narcotic substance
hashish. On which I dismissed the informant by giving
properInstructions. And I, along with my companion, reached the
said parked vehicle and checked it. There was a person sitting on
the back seat of the vehicle. When 1 overpowered him and asked
his name and address, he told me his name as Ramakant son
Jamun Thakur, resident of village Fatehabad, Thana Paru,
District Muzaffarpur, Bihar, aged 45 years. I gave him a notice
under 50 NDPS Act that Ramakant, the above mentioned, is
informed through this notice that there is a suspicion of the
presence of narcotic substances in your vehicle. It is necessary to
search you. You want your search to be done by a gazetted officer
or magistrate or by me. It is your legal right. As per your wish, a
gazetted officer/magistrate can be called on the spot. Ramakant,
after understanding the above mentioned notice in his language,
in his reply notice agreed to call a gazetted officer on the spot to2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320CRM-M-18755-2025 -3-
get his or his vehicle searched by a gazetted officer. Ramakant
and the witness signed the reply notice. After that, I informed
Inspector Rajendra Singh of Sector 53, Gurugram about the
entire situation through mobile phone and requested him to
inform the concerned gazetted officer about reaching the spot.
After some time, Mr. Dinesh Sharma of ETO, Gurugram arrived
at the spot. I informed ETO sir about the entire situation and
gave him notice under section 42 of the NDPS Act. ETO sir read
the notice and introduced himself to the above arrested person.
Ramakant understood the notice in his own language and gave
his consent to the search of himself and his vehicle by ETO sir.
After that, ETO sir Mr. Dinesh Sharma searched the above
arrested Ramakant. No items were recovered from his body. When
the white plastic sheet kept under the seat behind the driver’s seat
was taken out and checked, we found a narcotic substance called
hashish inside it. ETO sir and I smelled and checked it with our
own experience, and the substance appeared to be Charas, and
electronic scale was arranged and the drug Charas was weighed
along with the polythene, and the total weight including the
polythene came out to be 193 grams, about which Ramakant was
asked for a license or permit for keeping the above mentioned
narcotic substance, but Ramakant was unable to present license
or permit for the same. The recovered narcotics substance
Charas was wrapped along the polythene in a cloth, after that I,
Sub-Inspector Jitender put a stamp of JK and ETO Sir put a
stamp of MK. ETO sir took the stamp in his own authority after
use and I handed over my stamp to Ct. Gautam no. 4308/GGM.
After this ETO sir verified the parcel. Narcotic substance Charas
was taken into police custody through list of receipt of parcel.
Constable Gautam no. 4308/GGM has signed the list of receipt,
which was verified by ETO sir. The above mentioned Ramakant
has committed the crime of 20 (b) (ii) (B) NDPS Act by keeping
193 grams of hashish in his possession, on which constable
Gautam ►No. 4308/GGM is being sent to the police station to
prepare the article and to get the FIR registered. After registering
the FIR, inform at the spot with FIR number form and I ASI, am
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -4-
the complainant in the present case, hence another investigation
officer should be sent for further investigation in the case. I ASI,
am busy in investigation at the spot Place- Saraswati Kunj Sec 53
GGM SD/- Jitendra S.O.P.N. Police Station Sector 53 District
Gurugram Date 07-11- 2023 Time 7.50 PM.’
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 as he was even not named in
the instant FIR. During the course of the investigation, one person namely
Ramakant was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement the
petitioner was nominated in the present FIR and the alleged recovery of
1582 grams of Charas was found in possession of the co-accused person
namely Ramakant, who has already been granted the concession of regular
bail vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-751-2025 by this Court.
He has further argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that
he supplied the sim card to the main accused Ramakant. He asserts that the
antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby, he is not a habitual
offender.
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 7 months and 16 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the quantity
involved in the present case is commercial in nature, therefore, rigours of
Section 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -5-
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out
that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 7 months
and 4 days, the allegations against the petitioner is of only providing a sim
card, which was used by the co-accused Ramakant from whom the contraband
was recovered and he was granted the concession of regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-751-2025, antecedents of the
petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, 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 27.01.2025 charges are framed on 11.03.2025 and
out of 36 prosecution witnesses, only four PWs have 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
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -6-
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 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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -7-
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 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.”
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050320
CRM-M-18755-2025 -8-
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. 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.
5. Relief:
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.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
21.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:58:40 :::
[ad_2]
Source link