Jagsir Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :05.12.2025 Jagsir Singh . . . Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Manvinder Sindhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) CRM-48359-2025 1.

Present application has been filed u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 for placing on record the true translated copies of applications given by the petitioner as Annexure (s) P-9 and P-10.

2.

Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-9 and P-10 filed along application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

CRM stands disposed of.

M AIN CASE 1.

The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Jagsir Singh aged about 74 years under 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 0120 dated 06.08.2024 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 and

Sections 27, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 25 of Arms Act (added later on), 2.

As per allegations in FIR while police team was on patrolling and checking suspicious persons then one car stopped and some unknown person disclosed to ASI Bhupinder Singh that, one Parshan Singh, who has taken land measuring 19/20 acres of land on lease from Gurpal Singh son of Sukhpal Singh is involved in smuggling of illegal and narcotic substances namely poppy husk. It was also alleged that Parshan Singh keeps drugs in his room which has been constructed in the field. On the basis of information, on 06.08.2024, a raid was conducted and thereupon, 183 kgs 500 grams of poppy husk and one .12 bore countrymade pistol was recovered from the constructed rooms on the aforementioned land. After a period of about 2 months i.e. 20.11.

2024, one disclosure statement of the arrested accused Parshan Singh was recorded in which he disclosed that petitioner is also involved in the business of sale and purchase of narcotic substances. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that except of the disclosure statement there is no substantive evidence collected during the investigation against the petitioner, even petitioner is inside jail for the last more than a period of one year i.e. since 20.11.2024. Nothing substantial could be recovered from possession of the petitioner. Further, states that, culmination of trial is likely to take considerable time, as out of 38 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. Thus, prays for grant of bail.

Status report by way of affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police, Anti Narcotics Task Force, Bathinda Range, Bathinda and the same is taken on record.

4.

On the other hand learned State counsel argues that petitioner is a habitual offender and is found indulged earlier also, in one more case i.e. FIR No. 143 dated 05.07.2023, under Section 18-B NDPS Act, P.S. City Rampura, District Bathinda. However, it is not denied that trial in the said case is still pending. Learned State counsel also confirms the fact that, out of 38 prosecution witnesss none has been examined till date and petitioner is inside jail for the last one year. 5.

Considering all the circumstances and going through the status report and the petition, I deem it appropriate to consider the plea of the petitioner, as personal liberty of anyone cannot be detained for an indefinite period.

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, the petitioner is found to be directly involved in similar activities, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 05.12.2025 ankit Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No