Sukhwinder Singh Alias Soni v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 12.12.2022 Sukhwinder Singh @ Soni ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ripudaman Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Kulwinder Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.138, dated 10.10.2019, Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana, under Sections 21/61 of NDPS Act and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.

2.

As per the case of prosecution, the police received secret information on 10.10.2019 to the effect that Jasdeep Singh, Sukhwinder Singh (petitioner) and Vishal Kumar indulged in sale of 'Heroin' and that on the given day they were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR-06Q-6027 along with the contraband. Pursuant to receipt of said

- 2 - information barricading was held and all the three were apprehended by the police. It is the case of prosecution that while co-accused Jasdeep Singh was driving the vehicle in question and was also owner of the same, petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh was sitting on the front passenger seat and Vishal Kumar was sitting on the rear seat. Upon search of the vehicle 266 grams of 'Heroin' was recovered. Coaccused-Vishal Kumar was found in possession of one pistol .32 bore, 2 magazines and some cartridges while the petitioner was found in possession of one pistol 9 mm along with 6 cartridges. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks regular bail mainly on the grounds of parity as identically situated co-accused Jasdeep Singh and Vishal have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2021 and 1.12.2021. It has been submitted that the petitioner in any case is on better footing inasmuch as he has been behind bars for a substantial period of 3 years and 2 months. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a case of recovery of 'commercial quantity' of contraband along with some arms, no case for grant of bail is made out particularly when some arms were recovered from the petitioner also. Learned State counsel has however, not disputed the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3 years and 2 months and till date not even a single PW out of the cited 22 PWs has been examined. It has also been informed that the petitioner is involved in two other case registered under NDPS Act and under the POCSO Act. 5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

- 3 - 6.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but while noticing that an identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court, the petitioner would deserve the same concession on the grounds of parity. In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 3 years and 2 months and conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as none out of the cited 22 PWs has been examined. In these circumstances, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 12.12.2022 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No