Dismissed

Rulia Ram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2023CRM-M/60219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected bail application under Cr.P.C. Section 439 for accused possessing commercial quantity of ganja. Court held accused failed to satisfy Section 37 NDPS Act burden due to criminal history. Trial expedited within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial expedited within six months subject to no delay tactics by accused.

Rulia Ram Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

214

¶4

CRM-M-60219-2023 Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

Rulia Ram

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶11

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta-on	Sec-ons
200	05.07.2021	Thanesar, District Kurukshetra	20 and 29 of NDPS Act

¶15

The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above for viola�ng the abovemen�oned provisions of Narco�cs Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), on the allega�ons of possessing commercial quan�ty of ganja, has come up before this Court under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail.

¶16

As per paragraph 20, the pe��oner has followed criminal history:

¶17

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offences	Police Sta-on
1.	1278	23.11.2019	20 of NDPS Act	Thanesar,Kurukshetra
2.	527	14.06.2020	20, 61 of NDPS Act	Thanesar City, Kurukshetra
3.	215	19.10.2020	20, 29 of NDPS Act	Krishan Gate, Thanesar

¶18

However, as per paragraph 8 of the status report, the State has men�oned the following criminal antecedents:

¶19

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offences	Police Sta-on
1.	307	20.10.1992	61-1-14 of Excise Act	CityThanesar

¶20

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶23

2.	157	01.11.1993	61-1-14 of Excise Act	CityThanesar
3.	298	23.08.1995	61-1-14 of Excise Act	CityThanesar
4.	517	28.07.1997	61-1-14 of Excise Act	CityThanesar
5.	348	03.11.2000	61-1-14 of Excise Act	CityThanesar
6.	29	14.01.2005	13/3/67 of G.Act	CityThanesar
7.	1278	23.11.2019	20 of NDPS Act	CityThanesar
8.	215	19.10.2020	20,29 of NDPS Act	Krishna Gate,Kurukshetra
9.	331	25.08.2023	174-A IPC	CityThanesar

¶24

The pe��oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and family.

¶25

While opposing the bail, the conten�on on behalf of the State is that the quan�ty of contraband involved in the case falls into the commercial category, and given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

¶26

REASONING:

¶27

While considering each bail pe��on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an�thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa�on Reports, wherein the bail pe��oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu�ons resul�ng in acquiAal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu�on stands withdrawn, or prosecu�on filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶28

As per reply dated 12.12.2023 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, the case of the prosecu�on is that on 05.07.2021 when inves�gator along with his team was on patrolling to detect crime near Crema�on ground, Sirsla Road, Kurukshetra. At that �me, one informer told the inves�gator that pe��oner- Rulia Ram has kept huge quan�ty of ganja in his under-construc�on house. Based on this informa�on, the inves�gator complied with the provisions of Sec�on 42 of the NDPS Act and sent the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime and Traffic and sought another inves�gator to conduct further inves�ga�on. On that, another SI Mahender Singh along with police officials reached at the spot. They also joined one Naib Tehsildar, Thanesar and conducted photography and videography of the house under construc�on. One room was locked and it was broke and opened in the presence of a Magistrate and they found a dug-up pit was present in soil lying there on which one door was kept. On removing the same, they no�ced sacks 31 in number having ganja

¶29

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶30

¶31

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶32

were recovered and on weighment, they had different weights of Ganja and over all the police officials recovered 2 quintals, 76 kilogram and 955 grams of Ganja.

¶33

Counsel for the pe��oner seeks bail on the ground that the recovery is from open house and the agreement which is being aAributed to the pe��oner is unsigned & unregistered and there is no evidence to show that the pe��oner had kept the contraband in the said under construc�on house.

¶34

This argument is best for pe��oner at the �me of cross-examina�on of witnesses during the trial but for the purposes of bail reference is being made to reply dated 12.12.2023 in which it has been men�oned in paragraph 1 (page No.4) that the contractor from whom shuAering materials were purchased, the electrician, plumber and the house from where the pe��oner had taken water to construct the house have joined the inves�ga�on and all of them stated that it was the pe��oner, who was construc�ng the house and procured the materials, as such, the inves�gator has collected the prima facie evidence to prove the domain and possession of the pe��oner over the house from which such a massive quan�ty of ganja was recovered and the pe��oner is not en�tled to bail on merits, considering the quan�ty is commercial.

¶35

Counsel for the pe��oner’s next ground for bail is medical ground.

¶36

In CRM-M-39834-2022 decided on 06.09.2022, this Court had granted interim bail to the pe��oner upto 30.11.2022 for heart related ailments . State counsel submits that the pe��oner did not join on �me and as such, he is being proceeded in this regard.

¶37

However, counsel for the pe��oner submits that the delay in joining was because of his heart condi�on and aIer that he had surrendered.

¶38

Be that as it may, in case, the pe��oner’s health condi�on requires bail, he would be at liberty to file an applica�on for interim bail by annexing all the medical evidence and the Court would consider bail on that ground. Such applica�on be filed by the pe��oner before the Sessions Court at the first instance and not straight to this Court. It is clarified that the Sessions Court while considering the said bail applica�on would decide the same on medical condi�ons without being influenced by the observa�ons made on the merits of the case.

¶39

14 Counsel for the pe��oner seeks bail on the ground of custody, however, the custody of the pe��oner is very less because he was granted interim bail but he did not join back on �me. As such, the pe��oner is not en�tled to bail on the ground of pre-trial custody. In addi�on to that, the pe��oner has massive criminal history as men�oned

¶40

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶41

¶42

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶43

above and considering the criminal history, in case, this Court grants bail to the pe��oner, there is all likelihood the pe��oner will commit and repeat the offence.

¶44

Possession of 276 kgs 955 grams of ganja is a penal offence in the following terms:

¶45

Substance Name	Ganja/ Bhang PaK
Quan�tydetained	276.955 Kg
Quan�tytype	Commercial
Drug Quan�ty in % to upper limit of Intermediate	1384.78%

¶46

Specified as small & Comme	i rcial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985
No�fica�on No	S.O.1055(E)
dated	10/19/2001
Sr. No.	55
Common Name
(Name of Narco�c Drug and
Psychotropic Substance	Ganja
(Interna�onal non-proprietary name (INN)
Other non-proprietaryname	******
Chemical Name	******
SmallQuan�ty	1000 Gram(i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg)
CommercialQuan�ty	20000 Gram(i.e. equivalent to 20 Kg)

¶47

Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985

¶48

No�fica�on No	2(iii)(b)NDPS Act,1985,S.O.821(E)
dated	11/14/1985
Sr. No.	2(iii)(b)
Common Name
(Name of Narco�c Drug and Psychotropic Substance (Interna�onal non-proprietary name (INN)	******
Other non-proprietaryname	******
Chemical Name	S.2(iii)(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or frui�ng tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; S. 2(viiib)] “illicit traffic”, in rela�on to narco�c drugs and psychotropic substances, means— (i) cul�va�ng any coca plant or gathering any por�on of coca plant; (ii) cul�va�ng the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the produc�on, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transporta�on, warehousing, concealment, use or consump�on, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narco�c drugs orpsychotropic substances;

¶49

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶50

¶51

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶52

Thus, the quan�ty allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The burden is on the pe��oner to sa�sfy the twin condi�ons put in place by the Legislature under Sec�on 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶53

The stand that the accused is in custody for sufficient �me is also not legal grounds to overcome the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.

¶54

The grounds taken in the bail pe��on do not shiI the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The pe��oner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the stringent condi�ons placed in the statute by the legislature under sec�on 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the pe��oner has failed to make a case for bail at this stage.

¶55

A perusal of the pe��on does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior. Apart from this, the allega�ons are serious in nature and considering the criminal antecedents the pe��oner does not make out a case for bail.

¶56

A perusal of the bail pe��on and the documents aAached, primafacie points towards the pe��oner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe��oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶57

Any observa�on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶58

The pe--on is dismissed . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the pe��oner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarcera�on, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial within six months, of which the prosecu�on evidence be completed preferably within five months and the remaining �me to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direc�ons in this regard. It is clarified that if expedi�ng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by men�oning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condi�on that neither the pe��oner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tac�cs to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expedi�ng the trial shall stand automa�cally recalled by resor�ng to Sec�on

¶59

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶60

¶61

CRM-M-60219-2023

¶62

362, read with Sec�on 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fails to aAend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with the law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date men�oned above, and if the delay is not aAributable to the pe��oner, then the pe��oner may file an applica�on for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expedi�ously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way.

¶63

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶64

13.12.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶65

JYOTI 2023.12.16 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶66

Rulia Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rulia Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Warden Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kasmiri Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kulwinder Kaur @ Palvi and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others