High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/28055/2023allowed

Rajpal Alias Pala Ram Alias Pala v. State Of Haryana

2023-08-17Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

2023:PHHC:106501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28055-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.08.2023 RAJPAL ALIAS PALA RAM ALIAS PALA ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.617 dated 27.12.2022, under Sections 15(b) and 27A of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. Status report by way of an affidavit dated 13.07.2023 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana, District Fatehabad, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Registry, is taken on record. Copy whereof has been supplied to the learned counsel opposite. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot; that the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner's house is non-commercial quantity; that there is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner, at least of a similar nature; that the co-accused has already been granted interim protection AMAN JAIN 2023.08.17 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-28055-2023 (O&M) -2and that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.03.2023. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. She, however, submits that the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the petitioner be not granted the concession of regular bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.03.2023. The petitioner was not arrested at the spot. The recovery effected from the house of the petitioner is non-commercial quantity. There is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner, at least of a similar nature. Co-accused has already been granted interim protection. Prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 17.08.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2023.08.17 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document