Jagpreet Singh Alias Jagga v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 222+227 1) Decided on : 18.08.2025 Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) 2) Jagjeet Singh @ Jitu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-2784-2025).

Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate, Ms. Diksha, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-18268-2025).

Mr. PK Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-2784-2025 & CRM-M18268-2025, as both the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM-M-2784-2025. 2.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga (petitioner in 28.11.2023 15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (S.

29 of NDPS Act, added later on) Ismailabad Kurukshetra

- 2 - CRM-M-2784Jagjeet Singh @ Jitu (petitioner in CRM-M-182682025) 3.

Allegation of the prosecution is that a secret information was by the police party that accused - Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga and Jagjeet Singh @ Jitu (petitioners herein), are dealing in smuggling of Doda Chura Poppy Seeds from Rajasthan and bringing it under the cover of loaded goods in their Canter bearing registration No. PB10-HK-8658, and does the work of supplying poppy seeds in State of Punjab.

On conducing raid, 125 kg. of poppy-husk was recovered from the rear part, i.e., body of the canter/truck. The canter/truck was being driven by Jagjeet Singh @ Jitu and the other accused - Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga, was sitting in the cabin along with driver (co-accused). 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that both the petitioners are facing incarceration for the period of about 01 year, 08 months and 12 days and they are not involved in any other case, except the present one. Besides, none of the petitioners herein, are the registered owner of the truck, which is actually registered in the name of one 'Binder Singh', who has not been made accused in the present case. Further submits that whether the petitioners were in conscious possession of the narcotic contraband or not, would be a moot question at the time of final stage of the trial. Also submits that out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined so far, therefore, petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. Thus, keeping in view the aforementioned facts & circumstances, petitioners be extended the concession of regular bail.

- 3 - 5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the separate custody certificates dated 15.08.2025 in both cases, in Court today, which are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate places.

Copies thereof have been handed over to the counsel for the petitioners.

6.

Learned State counsel submits that as per the custody certificate petitioners have suffered incarceration for a period of about 01 year, 08 months and 12 days. He further points out that, as per the said custody certificates, the petitioners are not found involved in any other case of similar nature. However, he contends that, keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute the factual averments made here-above by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

8.

While considering the plea of bail, this Court is conscious of the fact of recovery of narcotic contraband from the petitioner. However, this Court also cannot overlook other factual aspects, such as; the young age of the petitioners; their first-time involvement in a case under the NDPS Act; the total period of incarceration already undergone by them, as well as the fact that trial is likely to take considerable time, as only a few witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the plea of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial

- 4 - Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

10.

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

11.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 12.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

Petitions stand disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 18, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No