Sukhdev Singh Alias Sukhwinder Singh Alias Sukha Dass v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.38431 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.38431 of 2025 Date of decision : 25.7.2025 Sukhdev Singh @ Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha Dass .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jasjeet Singh, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.58 dated 11.5.2025, under Sections 21(b), 25, 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2.

The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 45 grams of heroin and ₹3000/- of drug money.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the alleged contraband and the drug money was actually recovered from co-accused Paramdeep Singh @ Raja. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question only on the

CRM-M No.38431 of 2025 -2basis of disclosure statement. Learned counsel has further submitted that 45 grams of heroin is non-commercial quantity but police has invoked Section 27(a) of the NDPS Act by alleging that the recovery of ₹3000/- from the co-accused is drug money. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is accused of offence pertaining to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus, his bail petition is barred in view of the Section 37 of the Act. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 24.7.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 16.5.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. As per the prosecution case, presently the contraband as well as the drug money stated to be recovered from the co-accused. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding

CRM-M No.38431 of 2025 -3from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 24.7.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about 2 months and 6 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR under Section 128/170 of BNS, 2023. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.

Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned

CRM-M No.38431 of 2025 -4CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 25.7.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No