Harjinder Singh @ Jinder Vs State of Punjab

Petitioner, an accused, in c a se FIR No. 25 dated 20.02.2 0 24, under Se c tion 18, 27, 29 of the Narcotic D rugs and Psychotropic Substa n ces (NDPS), A ct 1985, registered against hi m at Police Station GRP, Ludhi a na, has filed t he present 3^rd petition for grant o f regular bail. 2. Relevant facts as emergin g from documents on record be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶12

On 10.10.2024, a police te a m headed by Inspector Palwinder Singh, In c harge CIA-I Staff, GRP, Punj a b, camp at Ludhiana was pre s ent on Ladd o wal side at Railway Station, L u dhiana, on routine patrolling d u ty. When the y saw a person carrying a bag coming towards platform Nos. 2 -3, who on s e eing the police party tried to r u n away. On account of suspi c ion having a risen, the person was appr e hended. When questioned, he introduced himself as Satayadev Teeru s o n of Late Surinder Teeru, resi d ent of village Ethe, PS Murhu, District Khu n ti (Jharkhand). After the statu t ory

¶13

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-44467-2025 -2-

¶15

formaliti e s were completed, 15 kgs. opiu m was recovered from his bag. T wo sample p a rcels containing 25 grams op i um each were prepared and w ere sealed. P rimarily with this backdrop, a f ormal case vide FIR No. 25 d a ted 20.02.20 2 4, was registered against petit i oner, under Section 18, 27, 2 9 of NDPS, A c t at Police Station GRP, Ludhi a na.

¶16

Accused Satyadev Teeru a ls o got recovered a mobile ph o ne handset b earing two sim cards. The han d set and sim cards were also taken into possession. The case property w a s deposited with MHC. Du r ing interroga t ion, accused Satyadev disclosed that the contraband had been supplied b y Gurudayal Singh, who was a well knowl peddler of the a r ea. Further, according to him, Kuldeep Si n gh @ Deepa was to receive the supply o f opium. It is further the case of p rosecution that call detail rec o rds and bank statements of Gurudayal Singh were checked when it came to the notice o f Investigating Officer that fre q uent transactions had been m a de with Kul d eep Singh @ Deepa and Harji n der Singh @ Jinder. Resulta n tly, the afore s aid two persons, namely, Kul d eep Singh @ Deepa and pre s ent petitione r were nominated as accused an d offence under Section 29 of N D PS Act was a dded.

¶17

On 30.7.2024, petitioner w a s arrested. His dope test c a me positive a nd accordingly, Section 27 of ND PS Act was added. Statement s of witnesses were recorded. On culmin a tion of investigation qua pre s ent petitione r , challan was filed on 6.11.2 0 24. The others involved in the incident were also arrested on var i ous dates including co-acc u sed Guruday a l Singh, who was in custody i n another case bearing FIR No. 36 dated 4.4 . 2025, registered under Section 18 of NDPS Act, at Police Sta t ion Jalandha r Cantt.

¶18

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-44467-2025 -3-

¶20

Petitioner accused who was arrested on the basis of disclo s ure statemen t of co-accused Gurudayal Sin g h filed an application for gran t of bail befo r e the Judge, Special Court, L udhiana. The same came to be dismisse d vide order dated 30.9.2024.

¶21

Admittedly, this is the 3^rd ba i l application filed by the petitioner before t h is Court. Earlier, two bail applications were dismissed as withdraw n vide orders dated 25.10.2024 a nd 13.5.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated only on the ba s is of disclosure statement of coaccused G urudayal Singh, who was all e gedly apprehended keeping in his illegal p o ssession 15 kgs of opium. P u rsuant to arrest of petitioner, no recovery was effected. Prosecution is r elying upon the CCTV footag e of ATM wh i ch otherwise also does not con n ect petitioner with the commis s ion of offenc e . Moreover, the veracity there o f would be adjudicated upon o nly after evi d ence is led. Further, since , the withdrawal of second b ail applicati o n on 13.5.2025, charges have b e en framed, but out of 28 witnes s es, none has been examined till date. Thus, likelihood of completion of tri a l in the near f uture is quite remote, further in c arceration of petitioner in cust o dy, would n o t serve any useful purpose and would also be violative of fundame n tal rights guaranteed under Art i cle 21 of the Constitution of In d ia. It has th u s been prayed to take lenient v i ew in petitioner’s favour, who has been in c u stody since 30.07.2024, by ex t ending him the concession of b ail, moreso w hen he is not involved in any ot h er case. 4. Status report by way of affidavit of Tej Pal Singh, PPS, DSP, Zonal G R P, Ludhiana has been filed. O pposing the petition, learned S t ate Counsel s ubmits that petitioner is a smu g gler of opium. He and co-acc u sed

¶22

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-44467-2025 -4-

¶24

supply the opium on large scale to the p eople. According to learned S t ate counsel, if concession of bail is granted t o petitioner, he would again ind u lge in smugg l ing contraband. Dismissal of th e petition has been prayed for. 5. I have heard the learned co u nsel for the parties and have g o ne through t h e documents on record. 6. Factual aspects leading to the registration of the FIR have already b e en noticed in para 2 of the orde r . As per case set up by prosecuti o n, petitioner was not arrested a t site, he has arrayed as accuse d on string of disclosure statements. In vie w of the submissions advanced by learned c o unsel for the petitioner, but without commenting on the merit s of the case, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.07.2 0 24, investiga t ions qua him are complete, as f o r challan has already been file d , as also taki n g note of the fact that out of 2 8 prosecution witnesses, none has been exa m ined till date, thus, possibilit y of completion of trial in the n ear future is q uite remote, lenient view be t a ken in favour of petitioner wh o is not invol v ed in any other criminal case, b y extending him concession of b ail, for his f u rther incarceration would not o n ly be violative of his rights u n der Article 2 1 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would a l so be against the principle of “ Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception ” as hel d by Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131.

¶25

Resultantly, in view of dis c ussion made above, petitione r is granted t h e concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail bond with t wo local sur e ties to the satisfaction of le a rned trial Court/Duty Magist r ate concerne d . The petitioner shall abide by t h e following conditions:-

¶26

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-44467-2025 -5-

¶28

(i) The petitioner shall no t leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Cou r t and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner will not t a mper with the evidence during the trial.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the

¶31

prosecution witnesses.

¶32

(iv) The petitioner will app e ar before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶33

(v) The petitioner shall no 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.

¶34

(vi) The petitioner shall n ot 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.

¶35

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his libert y . (viii) 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. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M agistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed appro p riate while releasing the petitio n er.

¶36

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

31.10.202 5		(AARAD	HNA SAWHNE Y)
gbs			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable	: Yes /	No

¶40

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harjinder Singh @ Jinder v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh @ Jinder 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

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Narender Singh Vs Ajay Yadav

Babita Rani Vs Rakesh Kumar

Vinod Kumar @ Mahesh Vs State of Haryana

Talab Masih Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Alias Harry Vs State of Punjab