Munsha Singh Alias Munshi Alias Munsa Singh v. State Of Punjab

1-



    
     

 !

"#$#%&'

( "

) *+

  




  

    



  &  ,- ./ .

. 

 
 

  


  



  
 
  



!!!


. +0 -1& "

  


 

  
#$%

 & 
'  (
(
 
)*)%
+

,&'-.

   
( 


  



 
/0
'
%%
 *1 *% )*)2
 

  
)3+.

)45

' 
6 


 
 
 
31$2
+

,
-.
+  
)1
 '6 
 




6
'
*%

3* *% )*)2.

   
7 
6  
 
899  
9 

)




   

*1 *% )*)2

 


 0
: 
  
;

 





 
:;
; 

9
;

  

<
 

 

 
 =

9


 (
>
 
 

;
; 
 

(

9

 
 (

 
;
<
 


;

?
7 

  
 
9

9
  

2- <
 ( 

 


 
;
  
; 

;  

₹ ;



22
9

9

3$**@5
;
 
  
9  
 
>
;
9 

<
  

suffered disclosure statement that the recovered contraband had been supplied to him by the present petitioner. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He too was arrested on 17.03.2025. Upon search, 85 grams of heroin was recovered from him. The investigation now stands completed. 3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband has been falsely planted upon him. The petitioner has been in custody since long. The trial will take substantial time to conclude. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for rejecting his bail petition, especially when he has already been granted bail in all such cases. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any more. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender, since as many as ten cases have been registered against him. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

35.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6.

The petitioner is alleged to have supplied 55 grams of contraband heroin to co-accused Satnam Singh and is also alleged to be found in conscious possession of 85 grams of the same on 17.03.2025. He has been in custody since then. The trial has commenced but will take considerable time to conclude as no witness has been examined so far. Continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a sole ground for rejecting the bail petition, since his role in each case has to be determined on the basis of evidence to be produced on those cases. There is no basis for contention that he will repeat commission of similar offences if released on bail.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

2
. 3   '

( "

) *+