Joban Singh Alias Jobanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition n filed under Section 483 of BNSS is fo or grant of regular bail to the p petitioner in case FIR No.211 dated 02.09 9.2025, registered at Police Stat ion Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, unde er Sections 21, 27-A and 29 NDP PS Act, 1985.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for r the last 2 months and 11 days.

. He alleges false implication.

His name surfaced based on the disclos sure statement of co-accused, Rajinder Si ingh, from whom recovery of f non-commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly effected, it being 9 grams of heroin. There is no recovery eff ffected from the petitioner and no o evidence has also emerged to connect him m to the case, but for the aforesa aid disclosure statement, which is inadmissi ible in the eyes of law as per th he judgment passed by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. He is involved in one more case wherein noncommercial quantity of contraband was recovered and he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. He relies on the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Kumar @ Gogi vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M24505-2022 decided on 07.12.2022, wherein also the petitioner was implicated on the basis of disclosure statement, no recovery had been effected from him, he was involved in one more case under the NDPS Act.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having supplied the contraband to the co-accused. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions made and petitioner being on bail in other case. 4.

Heard.

5.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "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."

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 2 months and 11 days; on bail in other case and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed and he 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 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.

7.

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. 8.

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.