Balwinder Singh Alias Brand v. State Of Punjab
!
"
# $
"$%& '
! !" "
( %
) * +
'
, * )
*-) "$%& #$%&''#()*#$+ , - "
''
$ &.
.
'
' '
.
$
& /0 1
) $
3&4) ) ) 56) 2*) "
*
6
2 * ( *)
6)
"
17
)
,
$
$.) '
) ' ' .
7& 7 $'
'
.
''
$
' + 8 7
() .
(
3' 4)
, +
!
,
$' ( &
. ( &%& ( )
$
'
7
+
( , +
!
, 8
$ () &
+ 8 ) ( $
&
( 9 &+
'
'
$ .
' (
$) /0
.
9 ) '
''
$
*
,$ ) ,
'
.
& :+ )
$
'
' $
)
$
(
( +
:) & + ) '
& $ '
.
$
& Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the coaccused, namely, Jodhvir Singh @ Jodha and Salinder Singh @ Hunny @ Gandhi. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 23.8.2024 and 30.07.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-39952-2024 and CRM-M-32168-2024, respectively, whereby the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Salinder Singh @ Hunny and Jodhvir Singh @ Jodha have been granted the concession of bail. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2024. He submits that even otherwise the contraband recovered from the car was 61 grams of heroin which is a non-commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the coaccused, who have already been granted bail. 4.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, however, he has endorsed the same that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Salinder Singh @ Hunny and Jodhvir Singh @ Jodha, who have been granted bail by this Court.
5.
Heard.
6.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner is behind bars since 22.04.2024. The
case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused Salinder Singh @ Hunny and Jodhvir Singh @ Jodha, who have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.08.2024 and 30.07.2024, respectively. 7.
This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
, !"-
( ;
'7 < =<1 ;
' & =<1