Allowed¶9

Sagar Parle v. State of Haryana

Bail – S.483 BNSS 2023 – FIR No.14 dated 01.02.2024, S.22(c) NDPS Act, PS Sector 9, Ambala City

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2025CRM-M/2004/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Harpreet Singh Brar J.), decided 21.01.2025 — regular bail under S.483 BNSS 2023 in FIR No.14/01.02.2024, S.22(c) NDPS Act, PS Sector 9, Ambala City; bail granted after 04 months 18 days custody, completed investigation and framing of charges with zero of 23 prosecution witnesses examined; continued detention held violative of Article 21; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 relied on; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, without comment on the merits of the case. ¶9

Sagar Parle Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, without comment on the merits of the case.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Sagar Parle is entitled to regular bail in FIR No.14 dated 01.02.2024 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, where the contraband was recovered from co-accused Sumit @ Gochu and the petitioner was implicated through successive disclosure statements. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Petition allowed: petitioner Sagar Parle ordered released on regular bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court, without expression of opinion on the merits; the trial court to proceed on its own merits.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

With the petitioner incarcerated for 04 months and 18 days, investigation complete, charges framed and none of the 23 prosecution witnesses examined, no useful purpose would be served by further detention; keeping the petitioner in detention without the prospect of the trial concluding in the near future would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, culpability being determinable at trial.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S.483 BNSS 2023 — FIR No.14 dated 01.02.2024, S.22(c) NDPS Act, PS Sector 9, Ambala City — 15 intoxicant injections (30 ML) recovered from co-accused Sumit @ Gochu; petitioner Sagar Parle named as supplier through successive disclosure statements (co-accused to Kamal to petitioner) — petitioner in custody since 01.09.2024 (04 months 18 days); investigation complete, report under S.173 Cr.P.C. presented, charges framed, none of 23 prosecution witnesses examined — further detention held violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; culpability left for trial — regular bail granted without expressing opinion on merits — Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, relied on regarding plight of undertrial prisoners. Counsel's contentions (disclosure statements under S.67 NDPS Act hit by S.25 Evidence Act; contraband of non-commercial quantity) noted as arguments, not adjudicated.

¶1

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

223

¶4

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.01.2025

Sagar Parle

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.14 dated 01.02.2024 registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sector 9, Ambala City, District Ambala.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2024, ASI Matlub Hussain, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty near Sector 8 Ground, Ambala City. In the meantime, a secret informant alerted him that Sumit @ Gochu was selling intoxicant injections and would be coming from Manav Chowk in order to sell them. Acting on this tip, the police set up a checkpoint near Shani Dev Mandir. Shortly after, they spotted a young man coming, however, on seeing the police party, he turned back and started walking briskly and

¶16

MOHD YAKUB 2025.01.21 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025

¶18

¶19

thereafter, he was apprehended by the police on the basis of suspicion. The said person identified himself as Sumit @ Gochu. A search was conducted upon and recovery of 15 intoxicant injections, totaling 30 ML, was found in his possession without a permit. Based on his disclosure, Sumit revealed that he had bought the injections from Kamal, who, in turn, stated that he had obtained them from Sagar Parle (petitioner herein). Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the alleged contraband has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused of the petitioner namely Sumit @ Gochu and during the course of investigation, the coaccused – Sumit @ Gochu suffered a disclosure statement that he has purchased the said contraband from one Kamal and thereafter, Kamal was nominated as an accused and he further suffered a disclosure statement and thereafter, he named the present petitioner as the supplier of the contraband. He further submits that any disclosure statement recorded by the police officials under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and such statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged contraband recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner falls within the category of non-commercial quantity. He contends that the investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is having clean

¶22

MOHD YAKUB 2025.01.21 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025

¶24

¶25

antecedents and he is not involved in any other case registered under the NDPS Act and the petitioner is behind the bar since 01.09.2024.

¶26

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had supplied the alleged contraband, which was recovered from the coaccused of the petitioner and as such, there is sufficient material to prove the complicity of the petitioner, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar from the last 04 months and 18 days and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 04 months and 18 days. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress. Out of 23 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

¶28

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

¶29

“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

¶30

MOHD YAKUB 2025.01.21 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶31

CRM-M No.2004 of 2025

¶32

¶33

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 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 opposite to each other.”

¶34

Further the culpability, if any, would be determined at the

¶35

time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner – Sagar Parle is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

¶37

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.

¶38

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶39

21.01.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶40

MOHD YAKUB 2025.01.21 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Sagar Parle v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Parle v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Another

Baldev Singh Vs M/S Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Balraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajni Rani and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.