Nirmal Singh Alias Ghadda v. State Of Punjab
!" #!#$ % & CRM-M-31483-2025 NIRMAL SINGH ALIAS GHADDA
STATE OF PUNJAB
%#& CRM-M-17066-2025 NAVJOT SINGH ALIAS JOTI
STATE OF PUNJAB
' ()'
*+ * , -----
!"
# $
CRM-M-31483-2025.
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-17066-2025. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab. %%%%% + * ,. % /0& Both these petitions are being decided by a common order as the same arise out of the same FIR.
2.
Prayer made in these petitions is $
&' ( ' # (
)*+ ,-,.. & #
/,0#1
+ # #2 3#
#&( #!# /45,0#
,
CRM-M-31483-2025 and CRM-M-17066-2025 -2- -6/65, + # #2 3#
#&( #!# /45,7 '
1 ' #
2 # 8 !
3 $
#&
# "
#
$
' # 9 ' 9 &#(
+ /4:4. * '' # ##&&
;< 7 "
' 9 &#
+ '
7
#
&#
#( '
7 " 7 ' # ##& +"
'
7
:
;:
37
(# ' ( 3 9 ' 9 &#* $& #
#&
2&3 &
$ ' # 021 '3 <&
#
# $ 7
('
9 ' &# !$ "' $ 7
8 '
$ 3 & 7
# " ( ( ( 7
)* 7 &
# " 3 $8= $ 3:& 4.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submit that Nirmal Singh @ Ghadda was stated to be sitting in the cabin alongwith the Driver, while the applicant-Navjot was stated to be sitting in the body of the truck. Counsel contends that the factum of conscious possession of the contraband by the petitioner is a disputed question which is yet to be answered during trial. The prosecuting agency has failed to point out as to which of the occupants of the truck had actually purchased the contraband more so considering that one Harmanpreet, who was also travelling in the body of the same truck, was found innocent by the police during the investigation. He contends that the petitioners are not involved in any other
CRM-M-31483-2025 and CRM-M-17066-2025 -3case and have already undergone an actual custody of more than 01 year and 05 months. It is pointed out that no evidence has been recorded so far. , > '$
& $
&(
* " '
# '
( '$ $
# " - 9
#
$#
#( "
$#&'#& 3? ' '# $# ' #
*
'
&' ( ' $#
'> 5 9
''
7
( '
&' ( '
$&
@& ( '(
6& 3 (
$#
'> 62&3 #
#
4 * #'
''
A 3
''
$'& # 3
#&
7 3
#'3
#'3 / 9 ( "
( " ''
(#
& A
# 9 '> ''# #
( $" '(' ' %+ * ,& * ' .#!#$
C6+
(' C6+