Deepak Singh Alias Deepu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2025 DEEPAK SINGH ALIAS DEEPU ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 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(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Deepak Singh alias Deepu 04.09.2023 21, 21(C) of NDPS Chohla Sahib Tarn Taran 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that recovery from the petitioner in the present case is 280 grams of heroin, which is 30 grams more than the maximum quantity of non-commercial. Counsel submits that he is inside jail for the last more than 01 year and 05 months and trial is proceeding at very low pace because out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, only 03 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. He also submits that petitioner is a young person of the age of 27 years and is never found indulged in any other similar activity. On account of the said reason, he may be granted one chance to rise up and rehabilitate himself once again in the society, thus, prays for bail. On the other hand, in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 17.02.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel does not dispute the total custody period and confirms the submission of counsel for the petitioner. He also confirms that petitioner has never been involved in any other similar activity in his past.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.

6.

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. 7.

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.

8.

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

9.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

10.

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.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) February 18, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No