Gurpreet Singh Alias Meet v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 GURPREET SINGH @ MEET ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. P.S.Sekhon, 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 (483 of the BNSS) in case FIR No. 444 dated 08.10.2022 under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station, City Barnala, District Barnala.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Banso was apprehended by the police along with 5500 intoxicant tablets and on the basis of her disclosure statement, the present petitioner was nominated in the present case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Banso. The petitioner is in custody since

-207.06.2024. He further submits that petitioner was produced on production warrants in the present case as he was confined in jail in another case. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab 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 03 months. On asking, he further submits that out of 13 cited prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined so far.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that only 03 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far; the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 03 months and apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence against the petitioner as no recovery has been effected from him; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, this Court deems it a fit case 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.

-39.

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) 08.09.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No