Bawa Singh Alias Mungi Vs State of Punjab

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.256 dated 11.10.2022, registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of NDPS Act 1985 (Section 27 NDPS Act added later on) (Charge framed u/s 302, 34 IPC), Police Station Mansa, District Mansa.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled in the FIR in the present case are highly improbable and unbelievable. He further contends that in fact Jagdeep Singh @ Manga, son of the complainant had himself consumed drugs and due to overdose of drugs, he died. He further contends that the petitioner had no concern with the death of Jagdeep Singh @ Manga and the petitioner was wrongly arrested on 11.10.2022. He further refers to the testimonies of PW-2 Teja Singh, complainant, PW-3 Satta Singh, and PW-4 Tarsem Singh, to contend that

¶17

VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.10 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

¶18

CRM-M-6063-2025

¶19

-2-

¶20

material witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since last more than 02 years and 08 months. Since the material witnesses have already been turned hostile, the chances of conviction are weak.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is facing 07 more cases under the provisions of NDPS Act and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶23

In the present case, apparently, Jagdeep Singh @ Manga, since deceased had consumed drugs and died due to overdose of drugs. The prosecution is yet to lead evidence to prove that the petitioner had administered the drugs to the deceased in the present case. At this stage, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 09 months and the material witnesses have refused to support the case of prosecution. Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

¶24

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶26

VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.10 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

¶27

CRM-M-6063-2025

¶28

-3-

¶29

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶31

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

¶32

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

¶33

(vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously.

¶34

(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner.

¶35

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard.

¶36

09.07.2025		(N.S.	SHEKHAWAT)
vipin			JUDGE
	Whether reasoned/speaking	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶37

VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.10 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

Bawa Singh Alias Mungi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bawa Singh Alias Mungi 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

Kulvir Singh Alias Keera Vs State of Punjab

M/S J.S. Builders Vs Shri Ram Finance Ltd.

M/S J.S. Builders Vs Shri Ram Finance Ltd.

Parveen Alias Binda and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mintu Singh Vs State of Punjab