Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Vikramjeet Singh @ Vicky – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 18737 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail Considerations - The decision regarding bail must consider the period of incarceration, nature of the offense, and the circumstances surrounding the case. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated in the FIR alleging the recovery of Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets. He has been incarcerated for over 1 year and 6 months and is not a habitual offender.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to grant bail given the circumstances and lack of prior offenses against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the justification for bail considering the nature of the offense and the time already served by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the petitioner’s long incarceration, lack of previous offenses, and completion of investigation warranted the grant of bail.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted.
For the Parties : Mr. K.B. Raheja, Mr. Amit Shukla AAG, Punjab
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations and charges in the fir (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail application (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning for bail decision (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. order for bail granted (Para 7) |
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, prayer has been made for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No.102 dated 13.11.2021 registered under Sections 22 (c) and 61 of NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka.
2. As per allegations levelled in FIR, the petitioner was implicated against the alleged recovery of 19500 Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case, investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges and only 2 witnesses have been examined out of total 11 witnesses as cited by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 1 year and 6 months. Learned counsel also submits that there is no other case pending against petitioner and he is not a habitual offender. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made in the petition while submitting that in the present case there is heavy recovery of tablets from the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year and 6 months, he being the first offender with no criminal antecedents and only 2 witnesses have been examined out of 11 witnesses as cited by the prosecution, besides, the petitioner being not involved in any other case of NDPS Act and the investigation already having concluded followed by framing of charges, I do not deem it appropriate to extend his incarceration. Reference in this regard may be made to an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA (Crl.) No.4173 of 2022 titled as Shariful Isalm @ Sarif Versus The State of West Bengal .
7. Without commenting upon merits of present petition, the same is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing of adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
