Dharminder Ram v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-17314-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17314-2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 DHARMINDER RAM ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No.109 dated 09.10.2024, under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as no recovery has been affected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Maninder Singh @ Bindi from whom 60 grams of Etizolam is recovered. The evidentiary value of disclosure statement is of weak nature. The petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2025 and challan has been presented. The trial is likely to take long time to conclude. He further submits that he be released on bail.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr.Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-17314-2025 the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is nominated as an accused on the disclosure statement of coaccused Maninder Singh @ Bindi from whom 60 grams of contraband is recovered. Learned State counsel further submits that the challan has been presented.

5.

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

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that no recovery is effected from the petitioner and he is in custody since 02.02.2025, continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

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) 09.04.2025 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document