Mukesh Rajput vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3266 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukesh Rajput vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH
           205
                                                          CRM-M-18219-2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of decision: 10.04.2026

           Mukesh Rajput                                                     ...Petitioner(s)
                                                     VERSUS
           State of Punjab                                                    ...Respondent(s)

           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

           Present :-           Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
                                (through V.C.).

                                Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.
                                               *****

           VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This first petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner(s) in case bearing FIR No.97 dated 06.05.2025, registered under

Section(s) 22/27/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala (Punjab).

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 06.05.2025, the Police

party headed by Inspector Jaspreet Singh, SHO Police Station Kotwali,

Patiala saw a person holding a black coloured polythene bag at about 8.45

p.m., who was coming from the side of waste dump. On seeing the Police

party, the said person became nervous, turned around and threw the

polythene bag on ground. The said person was apprehended on suspicion

and on query, he disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar @ Patha son of Anant

Ram. After complying with all the statutory procedures, the polythene bag

was searched and a total of 710 narcotics pills were recovered. Said Suresh

Kumar @ Patha was arrested, who, during investigation, has suffered a

disclosure that he alongwith his friend-Gurpreet Singh @ Mundi indulged in

205 CRM-M-18219-2026 (O&M)

the business of selling intoxicant tablets and they brought intoxicant tablets

from applicant-accused/Mukesh Rajput (petitioner herein). Accordingly,

Gurpreet Singh @ Mundi and the petitioner were nominated as accused in

the present case. Gurpreet Singh @ Mundi was arrested on 20.05.2025 and

on his disclosure, recovery of 110 intoxicant tablets was effected. The

petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2025 in the present case, however, no

recovery of any nature whatsoever has been effected at his behest.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that the petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case solely

on the disclosure of co-accused, however, no recovery of any nature

whatsoever has been effected at his behest. He submits that the said

disclosure thus would not be admissible against the petitioner. It is

contended that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of nearly 10

months in the present case. It is further argued that the investigation in the

present case is complete and charges have also been framed, but the

evidence has yet not commenced and no prosecution witness, out of a total

of 18 has been examined so far, hence, the trial is likely to take a long time

to conclude.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-State, on the other hand,

contends that the recovery effected from co-accused/ Suresh Kumar @ Patha

and Gurpreet Singh @ Mundi, is commercial in nature and that the petitioner

was the backward link in supply of the contraband recovered from the other

co-accused. She however does not dispute that no recovery of any nature

whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that there would

arguable issues with respect to the backward links established by the

205 CRM-M-18219-2026 (O&M)

prosecution.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the

instant petition with their able assistance.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as noted

above, including the arguable issues with respect to the involvement of the

petitioner in the commission of the offence, he being nominated as an

accused solely on the basis of disclosure of co-accused and no recovery of

any nature whatsoever has been effected at his instance, the period of actual

custody undergone by him, the stage of the trial and bearing in mind that the

conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, I deem it fit to allow the

instant petition.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate

concerned.

8. It is made clear 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 hereinabove shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case

on the basis of available material.

                                                               (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
           10.04.2026                                                  JUDGE
           Mangal Singh
                      Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No
                      Whether reportable        :       Yes/No