Kapildev Mehto v. State Of Haryana

    

        


  !" #$%$!&' )(

*+ , ((( $$!& - ,%( .    ((( %/!&0 &

' 1+ (.

.

  +

Present:

Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana.

.

  +  2(  
   1.

 3$ "%!456 The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.289 dated 24.07.2024 under Sections 15 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (later on Section 25 and 29 of NDPS Act added) registered at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. 2.

!& &$!&%

&7 6 3"!"6   / $$!& -   Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the present FIR was registered against co7accused Ranjit Singh and Mankirat Singh. He further submits that 62 kg poppy husk, which is marginally over and above the commercial quantity of poppy husk, was allegedly recovered from the cabin of truck of co7accused Ranjit Singh and Mankirat Singh. He urges that the name of the petitioner was even not mentioned in the FIR and he was

roped in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co7accused. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

&7 6 3"!"6 .

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent7State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that 62 kg poppy husk falls under the commercial category, hence, bar of Section 37 (1)(b) is attracted.

3.

& 38%$% Be that as it may, considering the custody period ie. 01 year 01month for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was subsequently named on the basis of the disclosure statement of co7accused; he is not involved in any other case; nothing has been recovered from him and alleged recovered contraband i.e. 62 kg of poppy husk from co7accused, is marginally over and above the commercial quantity (50 kg.), in addition to the fact that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on 09.01.2025, charges have been framed on 01.02.2025 and out of total 25 prosecution witnesses only one has bееn еxаmined so far, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Taking into consideration the following orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court wherein the recovery from the accused was marginally over and above the commercial quantity for the respective contraband in each case, the Courts have taken a lenient view while granting bail to the accused therein i.e. Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of Punjab, CRM7M7785772022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh versus State of Punjab, CRM7M74624472022 decided on 19.01.2023, Hari Yadav @ Haiya versus State of Punjab (CRM7M73764572021)' decided on 11.11.2022, 'Jang Kanwar Versus State of Punjab (CRM7M75341572021)' decided on 19.01.2022, 'Shankar Prashad Chanau Versus The State of Punjab, CRM7M72409072020, decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar Versus State of Punjab, CRM7M71702172021, decided on 31.08.

2021, Salim Versus State of Haryana, CRM7M74243672020, decided on 24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab, CRM7M7305572021, decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Gopi Versus State of Punjab, CRM7M74103972019, Singh ecided on 26.02.2020, Dalbara Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM7 M74788072022 decided on 16.01.2023 and Vivek Watts Vs. State of Punjab, CRM7M71379172022 decided on 12.02.2023.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "

 

  

    


  !, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:7
    

   

         

        

   

    

        



  

   

          

  

  

    

  

 

     

    

    

   

   

    

  

   

   !

 " 



     

  

      

     

  

    #    

     

 $#  

      



        



   

 

      

  %    % 

  

                   

                        &'      

     





   

  

   

    

 

         

 

              ( 

  

              

   

     

   

      

   

  )       

 

 

       

     

     

  

   

   



 *    

 )          

    

      

      

  

   

   

           

 

  + 

  

        

        #

 

  

    

       , 

  -  

 

 . 

   &$/ %  %   ,    012$    *         

 

 - , 

    &$/ % % ,  012$ 3#    

   *  



   

    



                #

 

  

   

          

        

*

  0 %       

    

      

           %    (  4 +(

%  0$5,602&!4%4% !&0/76023!

  8 

48!&657602!06)%%/35 /#    -    



           9- #   ) "(  6020$!)%:./61  -   ;

 % (

 



< -)) )

,  0156!)%%3/3   



  

 - 9    =+.

(401&% 

&2/

         

4 

 

 .

  (401$0 $3/ 

  

          #             +     



         -    2 



       



  

   #       

   

   



   

 



  

    



    

  

               

-   > 5.

 

. '

  In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is

hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

In the afore7said 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. 9.

  +:



)(

;< '



-?



?9 '

  

?9