Joan vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Joan vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2024

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021679




CRM-M-58488-2023                        -1-          2024:PHHC:021679

218         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                               CRM-M-58488-2023
                                               Date of Decision: 15.02.2024

Joan                                                                  ...Petitioner
                                         vs.
State of Punjab                                                     ...Respondent



Coram :     Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

Present :   Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate with
            Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                   ***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of

the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.239 dated

02.09.2021 registered under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of

NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District

Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been wrongly arrested in the present case and the recovery of 1020 intoxicant

tablets have been wrongly shown from him. He further contends that similarly

placed co-accused, namely, Chanchal has already been granted the concession

of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-

26325-2023 (Annexure P-1/A). He further contends that the final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented against the petitioner. Learned

counsel has placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021679

CRM-M-58488-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:021679

Court in the matter of “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and

another, wherein, the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-

” As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot
be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out
the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from
the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

3. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of

“Hasanujjaman and others vs. The State of West Bengal”, as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx. They were arrested on the spot
and have been in custody for more than one year and four
months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed,
though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial
will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction
issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year
from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have
any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on
the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the
petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are
found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other
penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail
granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary
consequences shall follow.

                                     2 of 4
                  ::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2024 08:05:11 :::
                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021679




CRM-M-58488-2023                          -3-          2024:PHHC:021679

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial
Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again
be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above
terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands
disposed of.”

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that

there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he does not deserve the

concession of bail by this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was arrested in the

present case on 02.09.2021 and is in custody since then. Even, similarly placed

co-accused, namely, Chanchal has already been granted the concession of bail

by this Court, vide order Annexure P-1/A. Thus, no useful purpose would be

served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition

is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his

furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty

Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned, subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to
the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on
the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021679

CRM-M-58488-2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:021679

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court
proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court
concerned.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if
already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the
same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the
concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence
and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during
the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of
residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the
concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

(vi) In case, the petitioner involves in any other criminal
activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed
seriously.

(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local
sureties and may also impose any other condition, in
accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety
bonds of the petitioner.

                                                     (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
15.02.2024.                                           JUDGE
hemlata

                   Whether speaking/reasoned :          Yes/No
                   Whether reportable            :      Yes/No




                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021679

                                        4 of 4
                 ::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2024 08:05:11 :::