Sukhdev Singh @ Baba v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: December 04, 2025 Sukhdev Singh @ Baba ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate, and Mr. Laghuinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner FIR No.

Date Sections Police Station District Sukhdev Singh @ Baba, aged 36 years 26.03.2025 15 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Dharamkot Moga 2.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that only on the basis of secret information, FIR (supra) was registered at the first instance, whereas alleged recovery was effected later. Recovery in the instant case from the petitioner is 60 Kgs. of Poppy Husk, which is

marginally more than the maximum of non-commercial quantity i.e. 50 Kgs.

3.

During the course of hearing, on being asked by the Court, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, informs that earlier also one case was registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, but the petitioner has already been acquitted therein. Learned State counsel also furnished custody certificate, dated 03.12.2025, which is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record, with their able assistance. Petitioner is stated to be inside jail since 02.04.2025, i.e. for the last 08 months. After completion of investigation, challan has already been submitted, however, the process of recording of statements of the prosecution witness is yet to start, which are total 19 in number. In all likelihood, conclusion of trial would take considerable time and liberty of the petitioner in such like case cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

5.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 6.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/

Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

7.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

8.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, Trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 9.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 04, 2025 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO