Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032485
CRM-M-12000-2025 (O&M) 1
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12000-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.03.2025
SUKHJEET SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
case bearing FIR No. 0127 dated 11.09.2024 under Section 22(C) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act') registered
at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2024 the police party was
going from Bathinda via village Katar Singh Bala in connection with patrolling
and checking of suspected person. When the police party reached near water
works of village Katar Singh Wala, then on the right hand of road in between the
Safeda trees, two persons were holding a transparent polythene envelope in their
hand, and they were seen in the light of the vehicle searching something. At
about 7:40 PM on the basis of suspicion the vehicle was stopped and the police
party hurriedly went to these person and found that the strips of intoxicant
tablets were clearly visible in the transparent polythene envelope held in their
hands and at the spot ASI tried to join the private witnesses but no witness was
found. Then the complainant-ASI Gurmej Singh apprehended both the persons
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032485
and started making videography and asked their names. One person told his
name as Sukhjeet Singh alias Seetu (petitioner herein) and the second person
told his name as Rajinder Singh alias Kala. The complainant checked the
transparent polythene envelope which was in their possession. Out of the said
envelope 90 strips, in each strip containing 10/10 intoxicant tablets mark
Tramawow-100 (Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets USP 100 mg) Mfg. Lic. no.:
14/UA/2021 Manufactured by IKON Pharmachem Pvt Ltd (WHO-GMP
Certified company) E-2 Sara Industrial Estate, Central Hope Town Rampur
Selaqui, Dehradun 248197 (Uttarakhand), B. No. T241030 MFG JUL 2024
EXPIRY JUN 2026 M.R.P. Rs.192.50 PER 10 TABS.I.O.A.T total 900
intoxicant tablets were recovered. On the basis of aforesaid allegations,
FIR(supra) was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is non-
compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act and further the alleged recovery of
contraband has been effected from a busy road and despite availability, no
independent witness has been joined at any stage. The Investigating Officer
himself is the complainant and the alleged contraband does not fall within the
ambit of commercial quantity. The petitioner is not involved in any other case
and the Inestigating Agency has concluded the investigation. Further the
similarly situated co-accused Rajinder Singh @ Kala has been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court vide judgment dated 03.02.2025 passed
in CRM-M-5004-2025 (Annexure P-1).
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel files the custody certificate,
which is taken on record and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that 900 strips of intoxicating tablets were recovered
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032485
from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner and co-accused
and the average weight of per tablet is 277 mg and the quantity of contraband
recovered from the petitioner is slightly less than the commercial quantity.
However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner is not involved in any
other case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since
14.09.2024 i.e. 05 months and 19 days as on 05.03.2025 and out of total 14
prosecution witnesses (02 given up), none has been examined so far, therefore,
the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Culpability, if any, would
be determined at the time of the trial. The petitioner is not involved in any other
case.
A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI' (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of under-
trial prisoner in India has observed:
"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
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 cer-
tainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the inves-
tigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure result-
ing in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy,
there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptu-
ally opposite to each other."
6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner-Sukhjeet Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032485
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
7. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of
opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed with-
out being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
