Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present:
Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
, J. (Oral) 1.
The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.61 dated 14.07.2021, under Sections 21(C), 27, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 212, 216, 109 IPC, registered at Police Station Khalara, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.
2.
As per case of the prosecution is that petitioner has been apprehended along with co-accused Amritpreet Singh and Gursewak Singh as 300 grams of heroin was recovered from co-accused Amritpreet Singh. A country made 12 bore pistol along with one live cartridge was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner is involved in 8 more cases under IPC and some cases under NDPS Act in which he has already undergone custody for a period of 1 year. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner in in custody for the last 2 years, 10 months and 6 days as under trial. He further submits that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses,
only 14 have been examined. Trial is likely to take long time for its conclusion, therefore, petitioner be released on bail pending trial. 4.
Notice of motion.
5.
, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 02 years, 10 months and 6 days.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.
In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner and the fact that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 14 have been examined; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.
8.
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 learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
9.
However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of her bail.
( )
24.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No