Makhan v. State Of Punjab


   


   


 



 !

"# $!%&'&"() 



*

! & &"(!+ '

,--

-



!'."($!( ' 
 )

 /0 

-


,

-

 1 

  

   !

 "  #$ %& ,

-

 12 

+3

      '$   ()* +,

-. $.   * -  -$'&'    & -/0 *(1

$    !

+
2        #$-     ,  $&    
)3 - ' 

/#    -

    /0 4  -     5     0 $'  "$5 66

'  ./7$ 4 $ 8

 


 

  

  

           !"#   $%

 &

!'(# ) % (

  * +!

#

) % ,

 *-)!+.  ) /



  01*!

 /    2    2

     %      %  3 -.4-,-...

 %  2  % 3,$5/   1 4#  6 

 # 



 63 " 7#



  4 8443"  6 6

 29     

 !: (!" %

)#3 " 7 



%  4 ; 2

 <

 6  < / 

 6, 7..

# 

7.4# (

 " # 3   <2 70# 

 

%  . ; 2

/   % 6  , 6=    

 /  

:  

  





  6 ,    <



 /:  

6      %  <

    

 /       2

 >/  %  % $ ,  ?< / @  %

6$2    )   72<" $ $  0  3   "  7 

A   /  6

   6,  

6 

%   6 /6  %   /   % 6  %  

 

%

6$2   )    72<" $ $ #" 7

#

 

 

 <

#/ % 

 2#  %  

 /

2 =   6 ,         6

9         

  !* 67<3   /   

66  6 $   :  7 

   %  4 804 3"

 ) % (

  * +!

 

* 6  

 %    6   2  2        /     

#   6  %   2   % 

 

!-$ ( #

!- $     

 : 

1..

B Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that initially Tanu Sidhu son of Raj Kumar and Deepak son of Bunty Dhaliwal were arrested on 26.11.2022 and from their conscious possession 365 grams and 15 grams heroin was recovered respectively. Counsel contends that so far as Deepak son of Bunty Dhaliwal is concerned, he has passed away, hence, proceedings against him stand abated; however, Tanu Sidhu son of Raj Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The petitioner herein has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of Tanu Sidhu.

Counsel contends that notwithstanding the disclosure statement of the co-accused Tanu Sidhu having been recorded, there is no recovery so as to essentially link the petitioner along with other co-accused, from whom recovery pursuant to his arrest had been made. He contends that the petitioner was taken in custody in the present case through production warrants on 06.09.2025 and yet nothing has been recovered. He contends that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody for a period of more than 08 months and the trial is yet to commence as there are total 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution, and no witness has been examined so far. He contends that involvement of the petitioner would thus be an arguable issue during trial. State counsel, on the other hand, does not dispute the facts as noticed aforesaid.

( Penal Code, 1860 and another is under the NDPS Act. He also does not dispute that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and that no recovery has been effected from him.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, without commenting any further on the merits of the case and taking into consideration that arguable issues would arise with respect to the involvement of the petitioner including the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, as well as the stage of the trial where the trial is yet to commence, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

4 2

,

-

 1 +5 +"+