Rajinder Singh Alias Raja v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.07.2025 Rajinder Singh @ Raja
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present :
Mr.G. S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.
****
, J. (Oral) 1.
The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.0088 dated 05.08.2024, under Section15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 15(b) removed vide G.D No.22 dated 21.09.2024 and Section 15(c) was added lateron) registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1).
2.
The case of the prosecution is that three persons riding a vehicle were arrested, 55 Kgs. Poppy Husk was recovered from Rinku Gurjar, 35 Kgs. of Poppy husk was recovered from Dheer Singh @ Dhir and Kuldeep Singh @ Mani and Rs.5,50,000/- as drug money was recovered from accused Surjit Singh. During investigation, the present petitioner Rajinder Singh @ Raju was named as an accused in the disclosure statement of accused Rinku Gujjar. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence on record. No recovery was effected from the present petitioner.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not involved in any other case. As per custody certificate, present petitioner has undergone 10 months and 26 days. Out of 37 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined and as such, the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, petitioner be released on regular bail. 4.
Notice of motion.
5.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate dated 05.07.2025, the petitioner is in custody for 10 months and 26 days.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.
In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the undergone period and the fact that out of 37 witnesses only 1 witness has been examined and trial is likely to take a long time and as such, 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 hereby 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 his bail.
( )
07.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No