Dalbir Singh @ Akash v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-52225-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52225-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Dalbir Singh @ Akash ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.112 dated 29.04.2025, registered under Sections 25 (Section 25(8) of the Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, District Special Task Force Wing/SAS Nagar Mohali.
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 10 months. There is no allegation of use of weapons that were recovered from the petitioner in any offence. Challan stands presented on 27.06.2025, but charges have not been framed so far. In all there are 11 prosecution witnesses. He is not involved in any other similar offence but for NDPS Act, wherein his sentence stands suspended. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3.
The custody certificate dated 24.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 09 months and 21 days.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
CRM-M-52225-2025 (O&M) 2 petitioner has been found in possession of two pistols and live cartirdges. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial and the petitioner being not involved in any other similar offence but for NDPS Act.
5.
Heard.
6.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." 7.
09 months and 21 days
in any other similar offence but for NDPS Act hallan was presented on 27.06.2025, but charges are yet to be framed; !! "
#
#
"
$! %
"
8.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each
CRM-M-52225-2025 (O&M) 3 and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
10.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 25.02.2026 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No