Amritpal Singh Alias Babbu v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision : 11.8.2025 Amritpal Singh @ Babbu .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
!"
# $
%&' #( ) * +( *)
&
+ (,
!" .
%
/
' 01
!"#
$$# %
$#!
&'(( ) ($ * + $$&" , -- .
/
,
0 1 2 3,
- - 3 -
4 , 4 5
) -
6
71 +70
8
-
+
7
+7
9
1 9
4 ,,
4
- 4 4 /
,
,
1 % (* .
:- .
+
+
4
. ;
4 - 3 -.
4 ,
4
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -2-
- .
3 4
44 - 7$&< 7$ 7$=7'&7*"%8- , <4 -
-
;
3 4
3 + $$&" -
4
4 - >+ 3 3 - -
3 4 , - ,
3 3 4
.- 4 ;
2
44- 9
4
3
4 - ) - %8 %
-
4 3 %==&"#&'($
;
-
, - 44- 4 , - 4 3 -
4
3
1 2 3,
! ?$!287<
$#!'$(2 3
!" .
, , / 43
/ $#
3
,
0 5 6, 3
, / , ,/ 4 3 , , /
+ ( 5 / 0
, 3
,0
-
/
/
3 , !" .
5/ 7 8
0
"*)
94 /
# + *) , 6
/
, ,
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -3-
8 / ,
) ! 5 5 5
5 $
0 $#
0 5
0 0
-
0 5 6, ! /
0 0 , $ ,
5 5
, 4-
&
1 ' -
3 ,, 3 @3
! "# $
!%" &'
(
)%
.
4
? &""9
- 3
? AB
44-
. ,
- " 4 %8 -
C,- 44- 4 - $"4 :. - -
4 -
-4
3 3
, . 4 - $" 4 :. - -
3
/ -- -.- --
%8- AB
- '#4 %8 - - 3 -4
4
44 - %8DC 2 - @3
E%
& %"'
*%" %"+ - .)
/ '
&0"0 .
(&
- 4 4F3
- 4 4 A
B '& >
F3
G , 4 3 %8 -
&=*"G E + 1&.2 .# $
"
%
"%3 '
1"%"2 5 ' ?< = .
4 , 3
3 4 4
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -4- <%) -
,
, --
H- , 4 .
4 <& <$ 4
4
, . - '# 4 %8-
,,
, 4 -
3
.
3 , -
4
- - ,
.
4
44-/ 3 3
, -
H- , 4 , D A B %&"'=7$!$& 4 ,
4 3 , 4 - - ;
4 ,-
,- 3
- - ,
%8- &! 3 -
4 0
4 %
A$!$&B ( &
-4
- '# 4 %8 - 3
4 44 - %8-
4 4 -
3 <%) 3 4 -4 7.
4 , -< -- - '#4 %8-
- 4 3 4 .
, 3 8+
4 4 --
4
, 4 . - ,
4 4 , , -
3 H
4
> 4
-
&'
, 3
$!&= &(
$!$!
&'
$!$!
&= 8 - 3
$!&= $!
$!$! DA B%8
%$$#!$7$!$!
DA B% &("(7$!$& D A B % &('"7$!$& D A B % &## < #(7$!$& D A B % $!*!7$!$& , - . ,
-- , , - . 4 3 , <%) / -
43
, - . ,
I '$ 4
@3
G , 4
43 - %8-
&=*"G
"
+ "# $ !
*+'
"# )0" -$
)) 12 &12 6 7 - &#!"$!$ F
? , . -
44 - - &" $= 4 %
- 8
-
,- 3
- -
&=*"A
- %8- C
,,-
4 -,
3
3
>+
&# 1 4 ,,
A8 B
-.
4 -< -- --
,
, 3
3 -< --
,-
, , -
4 - 4 44 - %8-
, ,
, -
3
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -5- .
-
- ,
-,
3 3 - -
-
, , , ,,-
, 4C '
3 , -, 4
-4 3 -< -- - '#4 %8- .
/, - 4 . - -
AB 3 . - 4 3 4 -.- 4 .
3 -
J
-
- - 3
. . - 2 .
-.
3 44 - 4 , 4 ,
3 3 ;
,-
-- 3 4 -
4 -< -- .
3 ,
4 3
4.
3
/ 3 -
4
, 3
44 - .
4 - .
4 .
.
3 4 -
3 -< -- 4
4
3 -
4
-- -
3 , -, 4
.
-
, 4
3
3. -
- - , 3
,-
-
4
. - / , 44 - , -4-
3
, - 4 44 - 4 - H
4 4
- 4
I 5
/ 5 0
/ .
-
& ,
5 5
,/ :
0
, : 0
,
5 $ ( / *
)
/ , As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in three more FIRs registered under NDPS Act, 1985. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -6petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. /
0 , # ! 5 0 5
0
9 /
3 & 9+ /; 8 05
,/
/ & 9+ /;
, /
1 % '
, 4 / %
'
, 0
/5
, / %
' -
, / % 5' -
,, / 0
%5'
/0
&
CRM-M No.11481 of 2025 (O & M) -7- %5 '
5
, !5 < 98<
4
,0
,
& 9!.; %5
' -
/, / / %5
' -
, 0
/ 5/ , 5 & 5 5 ,,
/ !
5 5 /
!"
5
0
, , 5
0
, ! /
,/
/ & 9+ /;
5
/
9 / , 5
* < /
5 6
, , ,
/
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 11.8.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No