[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovejit Singh Alias Lovepreet Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2025
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M) &
CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.11.2025
Sukhwinder Singh @ Bitti
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
212 CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M)
Lovejit Singh @ Lovepreet Singh @ Love
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in both these petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.156 dated 02.09.2023,
registered under Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act (Sections 24, 25 and 59 of
Arms Act added later on through Rapat No.49 dated 03.09.2023 and Sections 21-
C, 25, 27-A of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in custody
1 of 5
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M) &
CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M) 2
for 2 years, 02 months and 18 days. They have been falsely implicated in the case.
No independent witness was joined. Mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS
Act have not been complied with as the secret information was not reduced into
writing. Though charges had been framed on 04.10.2024, however out of 23
prosecution witnesses, only 04 have been examined. Petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh
@ Bitti is not involved in any other case, while petitioner-Lovejit Singh @
Lovepreet Singh @ Love is involved in two under the Prisons Act, 1894 and one
under the IPC, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed
by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificates 26.11.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars for 2
years, 02 months and 18 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioners, who were
apprehended at the spot with Rs.8,00,000/- drug money and country made pistol.
However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the
case, the petitioner Lovejit Singh @ Lovepreet Singh @ Love being on bail in
other case and Sukhwinder Singh @ Bitti not involved in any other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
2 of 5
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M) &
CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M) 3
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The
State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted
bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband,
considering incarceration for over 1 year, 6 months and there being no likelihood
of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in
Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706,
observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS
Act.
8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-
57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had
undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of
Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of
contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined,
allowed bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioners are in custody for 2 years, 2 months and 18 days; petitioner
Sukhwinder Singh not involved in any other case; petitioner Lovejit Singh @
Lovepreet Singh @ Love is on bail in other cases; charges were framed on
04.10.2024, only 04 out of 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far,
the trial is likely to take considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner
would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the present petition is allowed.
3 of 5
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M) &
CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M) 4
10. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each
and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific
order of Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, they are accused, or for
commission of which they are suspected of.
(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse their
liberty.
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their addresses and mobile
number by way of their respective affidavit to the trial
Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial
and if for any reasons, they seek to change either of the
aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to
the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioners.
11. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioners by this order.
12. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
4 of 5
CRM-M-46240-2025 (O&M) &
CRM-M-65448-2025 (O&M) 5
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of the other
connected case (s).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
29.11.2025
dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
