High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16721/2026allowed

Sajan Singh @ Bhola v. State Of Punjab

2026-05-21Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj5 pages

# $%&%!'( )

* * + ,

%%!' - &

.**

&/!'# '

& (

"#$%& .

- 3

$ '() * + ,$ ,-) $ & & ./ '-0 -) -1$ 23 "

$+ $&3(1 1 4313 2 " 4

./5 4 /"

./ $6

!"#$%& '

( '

) !#$*%& + , !$-$%&.

0 1 1.1 ) 2$!32+3#-*4 1

, .. . 1 / ) & 5))'0 0..

)/1

5))'0 , ) / ) ..

1 , )/ .,/ .

./ /// )

,/ ,

1 /( / 1

5))'0 6

),, 2 ,

0 , ) .

11 .) ..

2)1 7. / ( ..

, '

) !#$* 1 . .) 83 ,

. .

, .

1/ 1 .

!9$ /1 .

.) . 7

. ..

!"#$%& /)

) .

. 7/ . , ..) .

1 1 ) :

5 ;

//) ..

.) <!/= ..

// ) //)!#3 %4#%-"/= ,. !9$ /.),,

. ) + , !$-$

) ) ) ) ) /. .) ) :

/ // ) 1

5))'0 ) >$9>$$6%31 3 '

5 ).)

>$*$?!$!"@ Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the aforesaid case was registered on 07.03.2025 against Joban Singh and 290 grams of heroin had been recovered from him. He contends that during the course of investigation, co-accused Joban Singh disclosed the name of Mukhtar Singh @ Tochi and thereafter, said Mukhtar Singh @ Tochi further nominated the petitioner as an accused for having transported the contraband. It is contended that later on second confession of co-accused Joban Singh was recorded on 10.03.2025 wherein one Jobanpreet Singh, Manjit Singh @ Bhola and Harman Singh were also nominated as accused. Counsel contends that the petitioner is a young boy of 22 years and is not involved in any other case. He contends that there is no link as would establish the complicity of the petitioner with the co-

' accused in the commission of the offence. It is contended that the petitioner was taken in custody on 14.03.2025, however, despite the investigation having been concluded and final report having been filed in the Court, charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner. There are total 15 prosecution witnesses cited and that none has been examined so far. He further contends that similarly placed co-accused Mukhtar Singh @ Tochi has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in CRM-M-3652026. State counsel, on the other hand, does not dispute the facts as noticed aforesaid. He, however, contends that the petitioner was the courier of the contraband.

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 complicity of the petitioner in commission of the offence which would be determined during the course of the trial, absence of any recovery from the petitioner, the period of custody already undergone by him as well as the stage of the trial and also the clean antecedents and young age of the petitioner, 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.

1 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.

1 -

-!-