Sarmukh Singh Alias Soma v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219(ii) Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 SARMUKH SINGH @ SOMA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Abhaysher Singh, 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 483 of the BNSS in case FIR No. 160 dated 19.08.2023 under Sections 21,29,61,85 of NDPS Act and Section 25, 27,54,59 of Arms Act (Section 483 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station, City Sangrur District Sangrur.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that during investigation in case FIR No. 277 dated 31.12.2022 under Sections 307/323/341/325/427/148/149/120B/212 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station City Sangrur four persons namely Prem Singh, Jaspal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Chamkaur Singh were apprehended, while travelling in three different vehicles. On search of their cars, Prem Singh @ Premi got recovered on 1 kg 300 grams of Heroin

-2besides a country made pistol. From the possession of Jaspal Singh @ Billa, a pistol alongwith 04 live cartridges were recovered. From the possession of Chamkaur Singh, a licensed revolver of .32 bore and 06 live cartridges were recovered. During interrogation, he disclosed the name of one Rajwinder Singh @ Raja who has been named in the present case, who thereafter, disclosed the name of the present 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 Rajwinder Singh @ Raja. He further submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. 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 07 months and 18 days. On asking, he further submits that out of 34 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far.

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 out of 34 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far; the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months and 18 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,

-3therefore, this Court deems 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) 09.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No