Punjab-Haryana High Court
Murari Lal Alias Billu vs State Of Haryana on 22 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051736
CRM-M-12073-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231
CRM-M-12073-2025
Decided on : 22.04.2025
Murari Lal alias Billu . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Aryavart, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of Petitioner(s) FIR Date Section(s) Police Station District No. Murari Lal alias Billu 941 16.10.2021 20(b) & 27(a) of Sadar Hisar Hisar NDPS Act, 1985
2. There is a recovery of 2 kg 90 grams from the possession of the petitioner, which undoubtedly, is 'non-commercial' quantity against the 'commercial' quantity of more than 20.00 kg.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier petitioner had been granted bail, but on account of his absence, he was declared 'proclaimed person' by the trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2024. Thereupon, petitioner filed a petition i.e. CRM-M-7783-2025 (O&M), titled as, "Murari Lal v. State of Haryana", before this Court, against the order, vide which he was declared 'proclaimed person', however, vide order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 03:06:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051736 CRM-M-12073-2025 -2- P-5), same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Trial Court, and to move an application for grant of regular bail before the said Court within a period of 10 days, and thereupon, the bail application was to be decided within next two days, by considering the documents, if any, produced in regard to the medical treatment of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereupon, petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court and he is there inside jail since 19.02.2025. Further submits that in case the plea of bail of the petitioner is accepted, same would never be misused in future and petitioner would extend his cooperation to the trial Court for completion of the trial at the earliest.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, submits that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve any sympathy. Moreover, petitioner is shown to be involved in four other criminal cases.
Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this regard, already explanation has been given in paragraph No.9 of the present petition, whereby, it would be clear that in one of the case petitioner has already been acquitted and in other three cases, he is already on bail. Thus, counsel submits that in none of the cases, petitioner has been convicted till date.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court has also noticed that petitioner is not even alleged to be found involved in any other similar activity punishable under the NDPS Act, and he has surrendered himself before the Trial Court, after withdrawing his petition and in compliance of directions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as recorded in the order dated 11.02.2025 (P-5).
Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances, and the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 03:06:06 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051736 CRM-M-12073-2025 -3- nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner, and the factors noted here- above, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.
7. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
9. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.
10. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 22, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 03:06:06 :::