← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/65499/2025allowed

Prasanta Majumdar Alias Prashant Majumdar v. State Of Punjab

2025-12-03Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

 CRM-M-65499-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 218-3 CRM-M-65499-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Prasanta Majumdar Alias Prashant Majumdar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Mehtab Singh, 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.75 dated 27.04.2025, registered under Sections 18/61/85 of NDPS Act and 52-A of Prisons Act, (Sections 29, 21 and 27A of NDPS Act and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act added later on) at Police Station City-I, Sangrur, District Sangrur. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 7 months. He was not named in the FIR. It is only during the investigation that he came to be implicated in the present case. No recovery has been effected from him. Co-accused Gurchet Singh, who is similarly circumstanced, has since been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025, after being in custody for 6 months and 2 days and had 10 cases against him besides one Banso Bai also on 17.11.2025. Challan was presented on 06.10.2025 and the charges have not been framed and total 46 prosecution witnesses have been cited. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 02.12.2025, filed by the learned State

 CRM-M-65499-2025 (O&M) 2 counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 7 months.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he in connivance with co-accused had supplied the contraband and mobile phone to the inmates and the amount for which was deposited in the account of co-accused Banso Bai. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

                       !" " 

! #

 !

 $%&$'$'( "

      )%     * *           " "  

   '&  

+   7.

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 and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to

 CRM-M-65499-2025 (O&M) 3 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.

8.

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.

9.

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 03.12.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No