Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab

The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 30 dated 07.03.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 [Offences under Section 21(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 25(1B)a, 25(7), 25(8), 29 and 30 of the Arms Act and Sections 353, 186 and 307 of the IPC were added later on] at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. The previous petition, bearing number CRM-M-54675-2024 , was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.11.2024.

¶14

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 07.03.2024, a secret information was received by ASI

¶15

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.23 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-16781-2025 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

Parvinder Singh to the effect that Vikas @ Vicky Bhawan, Akashdeep Singh @ Arsh, petitioner Pardeep and Gurpreet @ Gopi were indulged in the business of sale of heroin and illegal weapons in the area of Shahkot and were also involved in offences of snatching. Believing the information to be reliable, a police party headed by Inspector Yadwinder Singh reached at the informed place. Two persons were seen coming, who on seeing the police party ran into the street. Thereafter, both of them ran in different directions and the police officials started chasing them. The person, who was being chased by Inspector Yadwinder Singh, fired a shot with his country made pistol upon the police officials but it did not hit anyone. In retaliation, Inspector Yadwinder Singh also fired a shot, which hit on the right leg of that person and he fell down. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as ‘Vikas @ Vicky Bhawan’. A country made pistol and 04 live cartridges were recovered from him. The second person was also apprehended by the police party headed by ASI Mandeep Singh. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as ‘Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh’. On his search, 260 grams of heroin and drug money of Rs.21,000/- was recovered from him. During investigation, it surfaced that the real name of co-accused Akashdeep Singh @ Arsh was in fact ‘Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh’. Upon interrogation, Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh disclosed that the recovered contraband and illegal weapons were brought by petitioner Pardeep and co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and only they could disclose from where they procured the same. Thereafter, on 16.03.2024, the petitioner and co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi were arrested. They admitted their guilt and involvement in the subject crime. They also disclosed that they used to bring heroin from one Vinod Kumar

¶19

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.23 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-16781-2025 (O&M)

¶21

-3-

¶22

@ Mota and the recovered contraband and illegal weapons belonged to all of them. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the coaccused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by above named co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. The petitioner was neither present at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record to connect him with the subject crime. No prima facie case for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC or under the provisions of the Arms Act is made out against him. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. Although, the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act but he is on bail in that case. The petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2024. The trial is likely to take time to conclude as no witness has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Similarly situated co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-9751-2025 . On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious and specific

¶24

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.23 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-16781-2025 (O&M)

¶26

-4-

¶27

allegations against him. He is duly named in the FIR. He along with co-accused had procured the contraband from above name Vinod Kumar @ Mota and had supplied the same to co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh. They all had formed a group and were actively involved in illegal activities of selling contraband, illegal weapons and also in snatching. The petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. The trial may be expedited. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the co-accused was involved in illegal activities of sale/purchase of heroin and illegal weapons. Although, he was named in the secret information, however, when the raid was conducted by the police in which above named two co-accused were apprehended, he was neither found at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him subsequent to his arrest. The only allegation against him, as per disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, is that he had procured the contraband and illegal weapons from some one and had given to co-accused. The petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2024. He is shown to be involved in one more case but he is on bail in that case. A perusal of the status report reveals that investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. There are total 20 prosecution witnesses and none has been examined so far as even charges have not yet been framed. It goes to show that conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Similarly situated co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, as mentioned

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.23 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-16781-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-5-

¶32

above. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.

¶33

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶34

22.05.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.23 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Singh Alias Sonu and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Shoounak Marhia Vs State of Punjab

Ashish Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Pal Vs State of Haryana

Simranjeet Singh @ Simra Vs State of Punjab