217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KAMLESH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. NDPS Act, 1985 (Annexure P-1). 2. In brief, facts of the case are that with other police officials was present at Sansi Chowk, Rainakpura, Rohtak On the basis of a secret information, Rainakpura Rohta personal search, 50 grams of Heroin was recovered. was registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of 50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.54 dated 06.02.2025 under Sections NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station 1). In brief, facts of the case are that on with other police officials was present at Sansi Chowk, Rainakpura, Rohtak On the basis of a secret information, he conducted raid near Shiv Mandir, Rainakpura Rohtak, near Johar and apprehended the petitioner. personal search, 50 grams of Heroin was recovered. was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has been falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of 50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18612-2025 Date of decision: 09.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in under Sections 21-B and 29 of City Rohtak, District Rohtak on 06.02.2025, SI Jitender along with other police officials was present at Sansi Chowk, Rainakpura, Rohtak. conducted raid near Shiv Mandir, k, near Johar and apprehended the petitioner. From her personal search, 50 grams of Heroin was recovered. Hence, the FIR (supra) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the has been falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of 50 MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18612 grams of Heroin has been planted upon her in order to show the recoveries under the NDPS cases. He further contends that the alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner, Furthermore, there is a complete non Act, as the offer made to the petitioner was defective. He submits that keeping in view the recovery in question, the embargo created b NDPS Act is not attracted in the present case. Further, the petitioner is a household lady and mother of two children, which requires a lenient view. 4. Learned State counsel petitioner, which i petitioner on the ground that indicate the complicity of the petitioner. Further, offender as earlier also, she was invo Act. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is that case. 5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: 18612-2025 2 grams of Heroin has been planted upon her in order to show the recoveries under the NDPS cases. He further contends that the alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner, falls under ambit of non Furthermore, there is a complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS as the offer made to the petitioner was defective. He submits that keeping in view the recovery in question, the embargo created b NDPS Act is not attracted in the present case. Further, the petitioner is a household lady and mother of two children, which requires a lenient view. earned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is take on record and per contra, on the ground that there is sufficient material available on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner. Further, offender as earlier also, she was involved in one more case under the NDPS However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute un prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a grams of Heroin has been planted upon her in order to show the recoveries under the NDPS cases. He further contends that the alleged contraband falls under ambit of non-commercial quantity. compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS as the offer made to the petitioner was defective. He submits that keeping in view the recovery in question, the embargo created by Section 57 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the present case. Further, the petitioner is a household lady and mother of two children, which requires a lenient view. produces the custody certificate of the per contra, opposes the prayer of the there is sufficient material available on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner. Further, petitioner is a habitual lved in one more case under the NDPS However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is on bail in A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender , with respect to prevailing conditions 6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18612 6. Having heard learned counsel for th the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since 07.02.2025. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. not been framed. trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382 cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. 8. In view of without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishin bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 18612-2025 3 vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest i measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” Having heard learned counsel for th record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since . Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. not been framed. The culpability, if any, would be trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention pect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and a R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Kamlesh regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishin bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since . Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Till date, charges have also The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the pect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. , the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18612 8. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by April 09, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 18612-2025 4 Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed observations of this Court. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment