Virender Yadav v. State Of Haryana




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33887-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2023 Virender Yadav ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.08 dated 11.01.2023, registered under Sections 18, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for more than 7 months. Non-commercial quantity of contraband has been allegedly recovered from him, it being 2 kg and 35 grams of opium. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act were not complied with while effecting recovery. Challan was presented on 11.03.2023, however, charges have not been framed. In all there are 16 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot with the contraband that was recovered





















from him. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to the custody, stage of the case and petitioner not being involved in any other case. 4.

Heard.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 7 months; not involved in any other case; non-commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from him, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case; though challan stands presented on 11.03.2023, however, charges are yet to be framed; in all there 16 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 6.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.





















(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

7.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

8.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 21, 2023 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No