Rajinder Singh Aias Bittu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 09.12.2025 RAJINDER SINGH AIAS BITTU .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Additional A.G. Punjab.

*** SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL) 1.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Pathankot has been filed on behalf of respondent-State in Court today and the same is taken on record. 2.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 , for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Rajinder Singh @ Bittu 30.07.2025 61-1-14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 Taragarh Pathankot 3.

As per allegations, the petitioner was riding the scooter PB35V3280 and upon checking total 18 bottles, each 750 ml (12 bottles found in the cardboard box kept on footrest in front) and 6 bottles of liquor of brand "Kala

Angoor" were recovered from the trunk of the scooter which was meant to be sold in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is already inside jail for the last more than 04 months and 08 days and after framing of charges on 20.10.2025, process of recording of witnesses is yet to start. Therefore, culmination of trial is likely to take considerable time and personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 5.

In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 08.12.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

6.

Learned State counsel, while producing the custody certificate, confirms that petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2025, i.e. for a period of 04 months and 08 days. He further submits that, petitioner is involved in 2 other NDPS cases, and 6 cases under the Excise Act. Therefore, he states that petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief for bail by this Court in the present case. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. 7.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel for the parties, and also have gone through the record available before it. 8.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by observing that until the charges are proved, petitioner cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period, as he has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04

months and 8 days inside the jail. Moreover, offences are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 9.

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. 10.

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. 11.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

12.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

13.

Petition stands disposed of.

09.12.2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) mahima JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No