Sukhdev Singh @ Manga v. State Of Punjab
-1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 Sukhdev Singh @ Manga ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***
Present:
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present third petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.120, dated 22.07.2024, under Sections 21-C of NDPS Act (Sections 25, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar.
2.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 22.07.2024, saw a clean shaven person standing on the road near Nakha Wala Bagh, holding a black coloured plastic packet in his right hand. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and tried to escape. However, on suspicion, he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Sukhdev Singh @ Manga (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the plastic packet having been held by him
-2and thus the search was conducted. On conducting the search of the plastic packet, 567 grams of heroin was recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2024.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court twice praying for the grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M-13210-2025 and CRM-M-39503-2025, however the same were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 17.03.2025 and 30.07.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present third petition praying for the grant of bail.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected from the public place, however, no independent witness has been joined. He has submitted that there is a blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act as well in conducting the search. He has submitted that though the petitioner is involved in 01 more case, however the alleged recovery in that case is 05 grams of heroin and the petitioner is on bail in that case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 22.07.2024, however,
-3there is no material progress in the trial and thus, his right of speedy trial is miserably defeated. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4.
Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner in the present case weighing 567 grams of heroin, which is commercial in nature, and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He has submitted that the petitioner is involved in 01 more case. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. 5.
Heard.
6.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the recovery has been effected from the public place. The petitioner was arrested on the spot on 22.07.2024. Till date, only 02 witnesses, out of total 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The alleged recovery effected in the present case is 567 grams of heroin, which is commercial in nature. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 05 days as on 02.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 01 more case, however he is on bail in that case. Out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. 7.
As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is
-4of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. xxxxx 21.
.....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
22. xxxxx
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken
-5up and concluded speedily."
8.
The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.
9.
This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail.
10.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 03.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No