Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh Alias Karma vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210
CRM-M-17351-2025 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17351-2025
DECIDED ON: 04.04.2025
SUKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS KARMA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.(Section
483 BNSS), has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No. 128, dated 28.06.2023, under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Copy of ruga, to the SHO PS Lehra, Jai Hind. Sir Today I SI
along with HC Gursewak Singh 745/SGR, CT Sandeep Singh
989/SGR, SCT Hardeep Dass 197/SGR and PHG Iqbal Khan
26720 in Govt. vehicle bearing registration no PB-13BE-3707
being driven by HC Anwar Khan 817/SGR having laptop, printer,1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:54:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210CRM-M-17351-2025 -2-
inverter along were present at Giddriani Road, near Bus Stand
village Haryeo in relation to patrolling and checking of
suspicious persons, vehicles. Meanwhile time around 8:15 PM a
secret informer came present and informed to I SI that
Sukhwinder Singh @ Karma son resident of Haryao are
intoxicant of Darshan habitual by bringing tablets the of Singh
selling same from outside. The said Sukhwinder Singh @ Karma
used to bring intoxicant tablets from outside by using his car
make registration Swift Dzire of white color PB-13BC-0572. no
Today bearing the said Sukhwinder Singh @ Karma in his said
car make Swift Dzire of white color bearing registration no
13BC-0572 will come PB- towards his village Haryeo by
bringing heavy quantity of intoxicant tablets from outside. If
barricading be conducted immediately in planned manner at
Chowk situated on the road leading towards village Sangatpura
from village Haryeo, near Bridge of Minor Canal village
Giddriani then said Sukhwinder Singh @ Karma can be
apprehended in his said car along with heavy quantity of
intoxicant tablets. Information is reliable and credible. Memo of
written secret information under section 41(1) of NDPS Act was
prepared separately regarding receiving of secret information.
Memo was being signed by witnesses. The act of said Sukhwinder
Singh @ Karma son of Darshan Singh resident of Haryeo by
keeping in his possession intoxicant tablets after bringing the
same from outside and selling them further fulfils the ingredients
of commission of offence under section 22/61/85 NDPS Act.
Therefore I SI am sending ruqa to PS Lehra by hand PHG Iqbal
Khan 26720 after getting it typed laptop and taking its printout
for the registration of case against said Sukhwinder Singh @
Karma son of Darshan Singh resident of Haryeo under the said
offence. Kindly inform the file no after registering the case and
inform the control room Sangrur. fellow policemen am leaving
barricading at Chowk situated on I SI along with for conducting
the road leading towards village Sangatpura from Haryeo, near2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210CRM-M-17351-2025 -3-
Bridge of Minor Canal village Giddriani. In the revenue limits of
near Bus Stand village Haryeo, Giddriani Road at 8:50 PM Sd/
Jaswinder Singh SI, CIA Sangrur dated 28.06.2023 80546-
01119.”
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 recovery of 11600
intoxicant tablets of Tramadol was recovered. He further argued that the
petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2023, wherein investigation is complete,
challan stands presented and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the orders dated 06.03.2024,
19.03.2024, 25.10.2024, 27.11.2024, 13.01.2025 (Annexures P-2 to P-7) vide
which co-accused persons have already been granted the concession of bail.
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.
Learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition
stating that the petitioner is involved in other cases, meaning thereby, he is
habitual offender. Additionally he submits that the recovery of contraband
i.e., 11600 tablets of tramadol falls under the commercial category, therefore,
rigours of Section 37 of NDPS would be attracted.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the sufficient period undergone by
the petitioner i.e., 1 year 8 months and 9 days and other co-accused persons
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210
CRM-M-17351-2025 -4-
have already been granted the concession of bail vide orders dated
06.03.2024, 19.03.2024, 25.10.2024, 27.11.2024, 13.01.2025 (Annexures P-2
to P-7) added with the fact that investigation is complete, and after framing of
charges on 29.04.2024 out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, none have been
examined so far, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that conclusion of
trial shall take considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the view that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for
an indefinite period, which would curtail right of the petitioner for speedy trial
and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon
the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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 whether4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210CRM-M-17351-2025 -5-
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 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 back5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210CRM-M-17351-2025 -6-
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 nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046210
CRM-M-17351-2025 -7-
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 lend the
petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
04.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 15:55:00 :::
[ad_1]
Source link