Nirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 NIRMAL SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 30 dated 04.04.2022 registered under Sections 10,11,12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 and Section 188 IPC, 1860 (offences under Sections 21,28,29,30 of NDPS, 1985 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 added later on vide rapat No. 30 dated 13.04.2022 and offence under Section 21 stands deleted vide rapat No. 22 dated 26.08.2023) registered at Police Station, Sarai Amant Khan, District Tarn Taran.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that a drone was identified near the border area and the same was recovered alongwith a battery and one cloth pouch having brick weighing 250 grams and one black string about 20 meters attached to drone. Thereafter, on the statement of one Manjit Singh who was

-2indulged in smuggling drugs from Pakistan, four persons were nominated as accused including the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by one Manjit Singh. He further submits that no contraband has been recovered in this case. The petitioner got arrested in the present case on production warrants as he was already in custody in case FIR No. 104 dated 23.04.2023 under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act registered at Police Station, City Tarn Taran.

4.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 02 months and 03 days and is involved in 07 more cases.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 02 months and 03 days and apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence against the petitioner; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-37.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No