Police Was In Private Vehicle, False Case Can't Be Ruled Out: P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Booked For Possessing Commercial Quantity Of Contraband
Observing that "probability of his false implication cannot be ruled", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man booked for allegedly possessing contraband of commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, "this Court can easily infer that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, and therefore, probability of his false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light of the fact that police party was in a private vehicle, details of which have not been mentioned and this very fact has not been controverted by the learned State counsel, even before this Court at the time of consideration of instant petition."
The bail application was filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. by a man booked under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Punjab's Patiala district.
According to ther prosecution, the accused was allegedly found in possession of 400 capsules of parvion spas containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride, 240 capsules parvion spas plus containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride and 500 tablets make Tramatrust SR 100 containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that that the details of that private vehicle by which the police party have statedly come has not been recorded in the police zimni and the case file, which tantamounts to grave irregularity vitiating the whole story of the prosecution.
Opposing the bail, the state counsel submitted that, it is a commercial quantity recovered from the petitioner who on seeing the police party out of fear threw the bag wherefrom the said contraband has been recovered.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted, "Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already incarcerated 2 years and 11 days in custody and not involved in any other case, as is clear from the custody certificate, this Court can easily infer that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, and therefore, probability of his false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light of the fact that police party was in a private vehicle, details of which have not been mentioned and this very fact has not been controverted by the learned State counsel, even before this Court at the time of consideration of instant petition."
The judge further noted that, the charges have been framed in this case on 13.2.2023, wherein out of 9 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far, meaning thereby the trial will take long time which tantamounts to violation of right to life and liberty as has been enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India even including the right to speedy trial.
In addition to that the principle “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence which needs to be adhered to the trial moving slow, as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018), the Court further added.
In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed the petitioner to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Mr. Deependra, Advocate and Mr. Agam Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab
Title: Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 174