Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 25.9.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 1 of 6 further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the chemical examiner report has not yet been received and hence the petitioner may be granted concession of interim regular bail in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others Vs. State of Punjab , 2014 SCC Online P&H 24990, relevant whereof, reads as under:-

....... following the decision of this Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 we reiterate that a court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

3 of 6

6. The petitioner was arrested on 25.9.2025 and the matter is still under investigation. It is not in dispute that the chemical examiner report has not yet been received. A perusal of the dicta of the Division Bench judgment passed in Inderjeet Singh Laddi (supra), when read in the context of the factual matrix of the present case, indubitably reflects that the petitioner ought to be granted concession of regular bail till the receipt of the chemical examiner report before the concerned Court. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 12.1.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3 months and 14 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of interim regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of interim regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.