Allowed

Jaspal Singh Alias Goldy v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2026CRM-M/10628/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an instant bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, noting his prolonged custody, the trial's progress stage, and the co-accused being on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing surety bonds and complying with conditions, with liberty to seek cancellation on breach.

Jaspal Singh Alias Goldy Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-10628-2026 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

120-2

¶5

CRM-M-10628-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.03.2026

Jaspal Singh @ Goldy

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *******

¶12

Present : Mr. Raj K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

*********

¶15

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.377 dated 07.12.2023, registered under Sections 21, 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station STF, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that petitioner has been in custody for last 2 years, 3 months, 16 days. He submits that petitioner and Amandeep Jethi were both named by Harmandeep Singh and no recovery effected from coaccused Amandeep Jethi as well from the petitioner and he in fact was granted bail along with co-accused Tanuja @ Tanu vide common order dated 28.01.2026 who was also named by aforesaid co-accused but recovery of 700 grams of heroin was effected from outside of the house. In fact, petitioner was in custody when he came to be implicated in this case. Challan has been presented on 03.06.2024, charges have been

¶18

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-10628-2026 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

presented on 11.03.2026 and one, out of 31 PWs has been examined. He is involved in one more case under NDPS Act. R eliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 . .

¶22

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that specific allegations against the petitioner are levelled by his co-accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to custody, stage and co-accused having been granted bail.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 2 years, 3 months and 16 days; coaccused are on bail; challan was presented on 03.06.2024, charges stand framed on 11.03.2026 and out of 31 PWs, only 1 has been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

¶25

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶29

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-10628-2026 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶33

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶34

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶35

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶36

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶37

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶38

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶39

8. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶40

	(AMAN C J	HAUDHARY) UDGE
27.03.2026
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
Whether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶41

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaspal Singh Alias Goldy v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Singh Alias Goldy v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmod Kumar Alias Parmod Vs State of Haryana

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kamal Kuttappan Vs State of Haryana and Another

Harmandeep Singh Alias Deep Vs State of Punjab

Nachhatar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sameem and Others Vs State of Punjab