Sukhpreet Singh Alias Sukha v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 SUKHPREET SINGH @ SUKHA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sidhant Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 01 dated 03.01.2025 under Sections 21(c), 61,85 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 10,11,12 Air Craft Act registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that 1 kg of heroin was recovered from co-accused Jobanpreet Singh who on his disclosure statement has named Manjot Singh who during further interrogation has disclosed the name of the present petitioner and the allegations against him is that he is a part of the smuggling syndicate which smuggles Heroin from across the border with the help of drones.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused while in police custody and the same is inadmissible and cannot be used

-2against the petitioner. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2025. He further submits that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 06 months and 21 days.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 21 days; co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail; that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery effected from the co-accused coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

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.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 26.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No