Sarabjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.07.2025 SARABJEET SINGH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Kanisk Swaroop, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet K. Barnala, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.01.2023 Bahawala, District Fazilka 22 of NDPS Act (22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on) 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C], seeking regular bail.

2.

Vide order dated 01.09.2023, the petitioner was granted interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the order is continued till date and in the pendency. 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report dated 11.03.2024 filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"xxx xxx xxx xxx Brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2023, the FIR in question was got registered by ASI Lakhwinder Singh against one accused namely Sarabjeet Singh on the secret information that on 21.01.2023, he (ASI Lakhwinder Singh) alongwith other police officials was present in the area of Village Sitto Gunno, there he received an information that the said Sarabjeet Singh is habitual of consuming narcotics and he also brings intoxicating tablets from Rajasthan and thereafter, he sells the same in his village and that on the same day, the said person is coming from Sangaria (Rajasthan) towards Sitto Gunno and he is in possession of intoxicating tablets. If a picket is

-2laid at a suitable place, the said person can be apprehended with heavy quantity of intoxicating tablets. The information being solid and reliable and fulfilling the ingredients of Section 22C NDPS Act, ASI Lakhwinder Singh got registered the FIR in question against the said person by sending ruqa to the police station. ASI Lakhwinder Singh sent message for sending I.O."

3.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

4.

The State's counsel opposes the bail and refers status report. 5.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a drug addict and possession of 900 intoxicant tablets came to him from the drug addiction Centre where he is under treatment and because of treatment, he was granted interim bail. To support his version, counsel refer Para No.5 of the status report, which reads as follows:- "5. That in compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the police met the Doctor of Vishwas Subhash Midha Mamorial Hospital, Abohar from where the petitioner is at present getting medical treatment since 04.09.2023. Copy of the medical record of the petitioner obtained from the said Hospital, is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. From the above said medical record, it has been found that daily dose of medicine of the petitioner has reduced to two tablets from three tablets from 07.11.2023, showing improvement in the health condition of the petitioner."

REASONING:

6.

Petitioner is a drug addict, no doubt there is evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, indulge in crime again. This Court wants to grant him opportunity to course correct. Given the above,

-3there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner.

7.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 01.09.2023 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 30.07.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No