← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39435/2025allowed

Gagandeep Singh Alias Gaggi v. State Of Punjab

2025-08-02Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-39435-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39435-2025 Date of decision: 02.08.2025 Gagandeep Singh alias Gaggi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present:

Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

     **** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of BNSS 2023) in case FIR No.03 dated 03.01.2023, under Section 15 of NDPS Act 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar, Dhuri, District Sangrur. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on Ravi Kumar was apprehended along with a truck having 3180 Kgs., of poppy husk. During interrogation he disclosed the name of the petitioner along with one Jaswant Kumar that they had fled from the spot. Thereafter, the present petitioner surrendered before the police and was arrested. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as apart from the disclosure statement, there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the recovery of contraband from the said truck. Moreover, petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 11 months and out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far and he is not involved in any other case, therefore, petitioner be released on bail pending trial.

4.

Notice of motion.

ANIL KUMAR 2025.08.05 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-39435-2025 5.

    

   on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 11 months. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner and the fact that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined and he is not involved in any other case, 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 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.

( ) 

 02.08.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.08.05 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document