Lovepreet Singh Alias Love Vs State of Punjab

At the outset, learned co u nsel for petitioner submits t hat inadverte n tly in the petition, offence un d er Section 21/61/85 of NDPS A ct, which w a s added later, could not be men t ioned. He has prayed that the s aid offence b e also read in petition as well as in the order.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Petitioner, an accused in c a se FIR No. 59 dated 13.05.2 0 25, registere d against him for commission of offences under Section 105 of B NS and Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, at P olice Station Sirhali, District T arn Taran, has filed the present petition unde r Section 483 of BNSS for gran t of bail.

¶13

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶14

Sukhdev Singh, son of Ta r a Singh, aged about 62 year s , a Labourer by profession, set the criminal l aw in motion by filing a compl a int,

¶15

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-41246-2025 -2-

¶17

pointing t herein that he has four children, out of which Sandeep Singh, a g ed about 22 y ears, was the youngest . Unfo r tunately, the boy had fallen in b ad company and had started consuming t he drugs. At about 10 AM on 9.5.2025, the boy returned home and as k ed his mother Karam Kaur to g ive him som e money as he wanted to buy dr u gs. This request was not acce d ed to. Unh a ppily, the boy left home. At a b out 5 PM, someone intimated h im (complai n ant) that Sandeep Singh is lyin g unconscious near the old buil d ing of Hospit a l Dhotian near Dana Mandi. H e rushed there and noticed that his son, who was lying at the disclosed si t e, had passed away. Seeing the deteriora t ed condition of the body, famil y friends and the elders counse l led not to g e t the post mortem conducted. Accordingly, at about 12 P M on 10.5.202 5 , the boy was cremated. On ac c ount of losing a young child, he (c) did not i n itiate any action as he was not in proper frame of mind. T he present c omplaint was filed on 13.5.20 2 5 alleging therein that enqui r ies made at h is own level revealed that San d eep had died due to drug over d ose given by some persons. He requeste d that those, who had given/s o ld/ consume d drugs to Sandeep be caugh t hold of and action be initi a ted against t h em.

¶18

On the basis of said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No. 59 dated 13.05.2025, was registered again s t him for commission of offe n ces under Se c tion 105 of BNS and Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, at Po l ice Station S i rhali, District Tarn Taran. 5. Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present cas e . The fact that the FIR was lod g ed after thr e e days suggests that the fact s have been twisted and colo u red version has been introduced. Petitioner, who had no prior enmity with the

¶19

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-41246-2025 -3-

¶21

deceased was not in any which way involved in the incident. Further, t h ere is no eye witness to the entire incident, who had allegedly seen petiti o ner administ e ring drugs to the son of compl a inant. That apart, the allegatio n of the comp l ainant that his son Sandeep Si n gh died due to drug overdose a lso remains u nsubstantiated, for there is n o medical report, even the p ost mortem e xamination of the dead body w as not conducted. It is further the submissi o n of learned counsel that inve s tigations are complete, for cha l lan has been f iled but conclusion of trial is li k ely to take sometime, thus, fur t her incarcera t ion of petitioner, who has in c u stody since 14.5.2025, would not serve an y useful purpose as the same w ould not only be violative of his rights un d er Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.

¶22

Status report by way of a f fidavit of Lovkesh, PPS, De p uty Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, P atti, District Tarn Taran on be h alf of respon d ent-State has been filed. The same is taken on record. Per contra, learned S tate counsel while opposing t he submissions raised by lear n ed counsel fo r the petitioner, submits that t he younger son of complaina n t, a young boy, aged about 22 years, died t o drug overdose. The investiga t ion conducte d by the police authorities r e vealed that petitioner and o t her accused, who are habitual drug sellers i ntentionally administered drug s to the boy k nowing fully well that he cou l d die due to overdose. In vie w of gravity a n d seriousness of offence, it has been prayed that no case for g r ant of bail to petitioner is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-41246-2025 -4-

¶25

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have alre a dy been noticed in para 3 of th e order. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the p e titioner, but without commen t ing further o n the merits of the case, the fact that petitioner has been in cust o dy since 14.05.2025, investigations qua h i m are complete, for challan has already b e en filed, as also taking note o f the fact that out of 14 prosecu t ion witnesses, none has been examined till d ate, thus, possibility of comple t ion of trial i n the near future is quite remote, lenient view is taken in favou r of petitione r who is not involved in any ot h er criminal case, by extending h im concessi o n of bail, for his further incarc e ration would not only be viola t ive of his rig h ts under Article 21 of the Con s titution of India, including rig h t to speedy tr i al but would also be against the principle of “ Bail is a general r ule and inca r ceration is an exception ” as h e ld by Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶26

Resultantly, petitioner is gr a nted the concession of bail sub j ect to his fu r nishing bail bonds and two l o cal sureties to the satisfactio n of learned t r ial Court/Duty Magistrate conc e rned. The petitioner shall abid e by the follo w ing conditions:-

¶27

(i) The petitioner shall n ot leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Cour t and shall surrender the passpo r t if any, before the learned trial court. (ii) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶28

(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-41246-2025 -5-

¶31

(iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶32

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶33

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same.

¶34

(viii) The petitioner will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶35

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶36

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order. F u rther, if it is found that petitio n er is involved in some other c a se, the relief granted to petitioner shall auto m atically be deemed to be vacate d .

¶37

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M-41246-2025 -6-

¶39

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶40

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 21.11.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶41

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lovepreet Singh Alias Love v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovepreet Singh Alias Love 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankhuri Ohri Alias Pankhuri Garg Vs State Bank of India and Another

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Deepak @ Hooter Vs State of Haryana

Rihan Khan Vs State of Haryana

Tavisha Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Monte Grand Country Resor(Skywood Hotel and Resort)