Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 04.08.2025 Sukhdev Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

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

Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

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

The 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 hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Sukhdev Singh 18 06.02.2023 22-C of NDPS Act, 1985 Sadar Sri Sri Muktsar Sahib Muktsar Sahib 2.

There is recovery of 1000 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR, containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride, from the petitioner, which undoubtedly, is 'commercial' in nature.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been no substantial progress in the trial, as only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, out of a total of 16 cited witnesses, and even with respect to three witnesses, only their examination-in-chief has been recorded, despite the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for the last

- 2 - about 2 years, 5 months, and 25 days.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, except one under the Excise Act. Accordingly, a prayer is made for the grant of concession of bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 02.08.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

Learned State counsel, though opposing the prayer for bail, fairly concedes the factual position regarding the slow progress of the trial. He also confirms that the petitioner has been in custody for a total period of 02 years, 05 months, and 25 days, till 02.08.2025. 6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court has also observed that the petitioner is not alleged to be involved in any other similar offence punishable under the NDPS Act. In view of the slow pace of trial, the liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances, the nature of allegations against the petitioner, and the factors noted above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 7.

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.

- 3 - 8.

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

9.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 10.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 04, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No