[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh Alias Jinder vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 2026
CRM-M-72057-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216
CRM-M-72057-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.01.2026
Sukhjinder Singh alias Jinder
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated 18.01.2023,
registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later
on) at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for 2 years and more than 11 months. The alleged recovery of 300 tablets of
Calviidol-100 SR has been effected from him, while 2700 loose intoxicant
tablets were recovered from the dashboard of the car. It is thus debatable that he
is in conscious possession thereof. Co-accused namely Teja Singh, who is his
father, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2025,
Annexure P-3, who was also involved in another case and recovery from him
was of 1000 tablets. No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery.
The mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act were not complied with.
Charges have been framed on 29.04.2023, however, out of 19 prosecution
witnesses, 12 have been examined. The petitioner is involved in 2 more cases,
1 of 4
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 certificate dated 07.01.2026, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2
years, 11 months and 15 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was
apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner
being on bail in other cases.
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
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 and 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
2 of 4
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 petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 11 months and 15 days; on
bail in other cases; co-accused is on bail; charges were framed 29.04.2023,
however, there are still 2 more prosecution witnesses remaining, the trial is
likely to take a considerable time; further incarceration of the petitioner would
be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the
right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.
10. The petitioner is 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 petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner 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.
3 of 4
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, he is an accused, or for
commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and
not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for
any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid,
it shall be done only with prior information to the
learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner 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
petitioner.
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 petitioner 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 construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
