Sher Singh Alias Hardeep Alias Hp v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 26.05.2026 Sher Singh @ Hardeep @ HP . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present :
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manjinder Singh 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 Sher Singh @ Hardeep @ HP, aged 33 years 19.12.2025 22 of NDPS Act (offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) City Bhadaur Barnala 2.
As per case of the prosecution, on 19.12.2025, when police team was on patrolling and checking of the suspected persons, at about 1.45 p.m. two persons were noticed sitting at the back side of the room, built in the Bir and they were holding transparent envelope in their hands counting the intoxicating tablets. On suspicion, enquiry was made and they disclosed their names as Inderjit Singh
@ Honey and Neel Kamal Singh @ Neeli. From the polythene, which they both were possessing 43 intoxicating tablets were recovered and as per said FSL report containing the salt of 10.92 grams of Etizolam. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the recovery was commercial i.e. beyond the maximum of non-commercial quantity i.e. 2.5 grams, however, petitioner's name is not there in the FIR nor he was apprehended on spot and subsequently, after registration of FIR through disclosure statement of the arrested accused petitioner's name was involved with the allegation that it was he who supplied Etizolam tablets to them. He further argues that apart the disclosure statement, no other evidence was collected during investigation nor it is highlighted by learned State counsel during the course of hearing of the present bail petition. The petitioner is inside jail for the last more than a period of 03 months and 20 days. Thus, prays for grant of bail. 4.
Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail, as petitioner is involved in two other NDPS cases also but same is responded by the petitioner's counsel that infact he being known to area police has been purposely involved in the present case also, just to increase number of cases against him. 5.
This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record available before it. 6.
In view of the fact that petitioner is inside jail for the last more than a period of 03 months and 20 days, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the 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. 7.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 8.
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. 9.
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. 10.
Petition stands disposed of.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. May 26, 2026 (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE reena Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No