Allowed¶24

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025CRM-M/21317/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS 2023; NDPS Act Sections 21, 27(a), 29; Section 111(1) BNS 2023; FIR No.10 dated 03.03.2025; Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar; nomination on disclosure statement of co-accused Gurshabad Singh; heroin 10 grams; drug money Rs.1100/-; custody 05 months (Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025); trial delay; habitual-offender objection by State; Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRM-M-21317-2025; decided August 11, 2025; Justice Sukhvinder Kaur; State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail to the petitioner on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. ¶24

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail to the petitioner on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.10 dated 03.03.2025 (Sections 21, 27(a) NDPS Act, 1985; Section 29 NDPS Act and Section 111(1) BNS, 2023 added later), P.S. Chattiwind, District Amritsar. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

As per the Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025 produced on record, the petitioner had already undergone custody of 05 months, and the trial of the case was going on.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

¶23

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶24
Nothing observed in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case; the observations were recorded only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-21317-2025 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; pronounced August 11, 2025; Sukhvinder Kaur, J.) — Regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.10 dated 03.03.2025, P.S. Chattiwind, District Amritsar, under Sections 21, 27(a) NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 NDPS Act and Section 111(1) BNS, 2023 added later). Petitioner Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori, not named in the FIR, was nominated as accused on the disclosure statement of co-accused Gurshabad Singh, from whom 10 grams of heroin and Rs.1100/- drug money were allegedly recovered, and arrested as co-accused. As per the Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner had undergone 05 months' custody; the trial was going on and its conclusion was likely to take some time, so no useful purpose would be served by further detention. Petition allowed; petitioner admitted on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate; observations confined to the bail petition and expressly not an opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-21317-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : CRM-M-21317-2025 Pronounced On : August 11, 2025

¶5

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori .... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

¶7

¶8

Present : Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. :

¶12

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.10 dated 03.03.2025, under Sections 21, 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as – NDPS Act) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar.

¶13

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2025, one Gurshabad Singh was intercepted by the police. On seeing police party, he got perplexed and threw a plastic bag on the road side, which he was carrying in his trouser’s pocket. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and on inquiry, he disclosed that the plastic bag thrown by him

¶14

MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-21317-2025 2

¶16

contained heroin. Thereafter, he himself lifted the bag and handed over to the police. On weighing, the same was found to be containing 10 grams of heroin. Then, from his personal search, Rs.1100/- drug money was also recovered. During investigation, he made disclosure statement, on the basis of which, three more persons i.e. Mangal Singh @ Ghori (the present petitioner), Jaspal Singh and Rajan Singh @ Talli were nominated as accused in the present FIR. The present petitioner was arrested as coaccused and has approached this Court by way of present petition for grant of regular bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and he was not named in the FIR, but he has been nominated as accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Gurshabad Singh. As per the disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, he was indulging in selling of heroin. No other allegation has been levelled against him. He has further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

¶18

Status Report and Custody Certificate of the petitioner, filed today in the Court, are taken on record.

¶19

Learned State counsel, while referring to the Status Report, has opposed the bail petition while contending that some other cases are also pending against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. So, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

¶21

MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-21317-2025 3

¶23

As per the Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025 produced on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody period of 05 months. Trial of the case is going on. The conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶25

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.

¶26

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

¶27

August 1 monika	1, 2025	(SU	KHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned ?	Yes/No.
	Whether reportable ?	Yes/No.

¶28

MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori 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

Ramesh Chand Vs Rajbir Singh

Rijwan Vs State of Haryana

Om Parkash Vs Gulshan Kumar Alias Sonu and Another

Jyoti and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Narender Vs State of Haryana

Rajat Dawra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others