Surjeet Singh Alias Jitu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54428-2025 Decided on : 19.12.2025 Surjit Singh alias Jeetu ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM :


  

 *** Present :

Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

***  

 , J (ORAL)
                         

  

    

  ! "

#$$ ##"

%"

$   #  &  ' 




 ( #&$ 
    ) *'  "

"

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 11.07.2025, ASI Paramjit Singh along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner, who was found in conscious possession of 20 grams of heroin. Hence the present FIR. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. Learned counsel contends that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner +     , **-  

*   . * *" He further contends that the similarly situated co-accused Sunny alias Cheena has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur vide order dated 21.08.2025. The petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented, charges have also been framed. He further submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date, as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed. "

  * "

$"

/    +

 

 . 

   

    +      "0  . * 

      * 

    **      "0   

*     

.

.*  

 *  *        "

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months and 06 days; co-accused Sunny alias Cheena has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of learned

 Judge, Special Court, Sangrur; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed and out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have has been examined till date, as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

%"

! 

1*    




        +  2 ( 3)       

*

     

  .    *  *      

(  # )      

   
 




  

"

" (   *

       

.

.

4

 5 6 

 1*  7  *)  !" ! 

#     $ 

 +        * 

      +  

     

     1 

     

.

.

4

 5 6"8 . 

     1*    ,  +9, "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."

&"

  .+     

.           +   

     



  

                 )  4'   :  4);:

 "     

   

    3 



   *  "

     

 **     



 

  < 

   = 4