Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 GURPREET SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms. Neha Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 421 dated 30.11.2019 under Section 15 of NDPS Act (lateron added Section 29 of NDPS) registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that a secret information was received to the effect that one Jaswant Singh son of Ram Swaroop is indulged in the smuggling of Narcotics. A truck bearing registration No. HP-12D-7640 was seen coming from Panchkula side and it was signaled to stop. The driver of the truck tried to flee away but he was intercepted at some distance. Thereafter 40 plastic bags containing 1000 kilograms poppy husk was recovered from the truck and the said Jaswant Singh was arrested. During interrogation, he

-2disclosed that he had purchased the said Poppy Husk from Gurpreet Singh, the present petitioner and Bhag Chand.

3.

Ms. Neha Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate appears and has filed the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner in the Registry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the present FIR and has been falsely involved only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. She further submits that there is only a disclosure statement against the petitioner and the same is inadmissible and is not a piece of evidence. The co-accused namely Bhag Chand has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2021.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 01 month and 11 days. On asking, he further submits that out of 27 prosecution witnesses only 12 have been examined.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that there is no other evidence collected against the petitioner except the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused; only 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined

-3so far; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 18.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No