Mohammad Taufiq Khan Alias Bablu v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 02.04.2026 Mohammad Taufiq Khan @ Bablu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Mohammad Taufiq Khan @ Bablu 17.09.2025 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 Gate Hakima Amritsar [S. 25(6), 25(7), 25(8) of Arms Act, 1959 & S. 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (earlier S. 120-B of IPC) added later on] 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused, namely Amarjit Singh @ Bau, from whose possession one Glock 9 mm pistol along with magazine was recovered, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-64902-2025 (Amarjit Singh @ Bau vs. State of Punjab). In support of the said contention, a copy of the order dated 24.03.2026 has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. It is further submitted that on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Amarjit Singh @ Bau, name of one Manbir Singh surfaced, and thereafter, petitioner was implicated in the present case on the

- 2 - basis of his disclosure statement. It is contended that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. However, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was recovered, on the basis of which allegation framed up that petitioner used to handle the money transactions relating to the alleged illegal arms deal.

3.

Learned counsel further contends that petitioner is inside the jail since 21.09.2025, i.e., for a period of about 06 months and 10 days. It is also submitted that although petitioner is involved in one other case, i.e., FIR No.27 dated 06.03.2025 registered under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran, however, he has already been granted bail in the said case. Thus, as of now, petitioner is not convicted in any case. Therefore, in view of the above and by claiming parity, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, has produced the custody certificate dated 01.04.2026 in Court today. Same is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the petitioner's counsel. 5.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that petitioner has been specifically named during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements and is alleged to be actively involved in the illegal trade of arms by handling monetary transactions relating thereto. It is contended that the recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- from the possession of the petitioner establishes his nexus with the co-accused and the alleged offence.

It is further submitted that the offence in question pertains to illegal dealing in firearms, which has serious ramifications on the law and order situation. Therefore, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve any concession of regular bail. However, it is not disputed that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that co-accused Amarjit Singh @ Bau, from whom the weapon was recovered, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court.

- 3 - 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material available on record.

7.

At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is noticed that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statements and no weapon has been recovered from his possession. Recovery effected from the petitioner is only of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, which is alleged to be connected with the transaction of illegal arms.

It is also a matter of record that co-accused Amarjit Singh @ Bau, from whose possession a Glock 9 mm pistol along with magazine was recovered, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. Thus, case of the present petitioner stands on a similar footing, if not on a better footing, and deserves consideration on the ground of parity. It is further not disputed that the petitioner is inside the jail since 21.09.2025, i.e., for a period of about 06 months and 10 days, and is not stated to be convicted in any other case. 8.

Keeping in view the nature of allegations; fact that no recovery of weapon has been effected from the petitioner; principle of parity; and the period of incarceration already undergone, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioner inside the jail would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, this Court deems it a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

10.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here-above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,

- 4 - trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 02, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No