Sajjan Alias Piddhi Vs State of Punjab

Th i s is the third petition filed u n der Section 483 of the Bhara t iya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023 for grant of b a il to the petitioner in case FIR N o. 233 dated 14.1 2 .2015, registered under Sectio n s 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 307, 3 9 9 and 402 of the IPC at Polic e Station Sadar Tarn Taran, Dis t rict Tarn Taran.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the a l legations against the petitioner are that he was a member of an unlawful assembly which was duly armed with de a dly weapons and h a d assembled along with other c o-accused persons for commit t ing dacoity and oth e r offences. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the com m on object of the u nlawful assembly, the accuse d persons fired gunshots upon the police party wi t h an intention to kill the mem b ers of the police party. During the operation, diff e rent police teams were forme d and from co-accused Bhupi n der Singh, a comm e rcial quantity of two kilogram s of heroin, drug money amoun t ing

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-6602-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶19

to ₹2.5 lakhs a n d deadly firearms were recov e red by the police team heade d by Inspector Baljit Singh.

¶20

It i s further the case of the pros e cution that the present petiti o ner along with co- a ccused Manav Singh alias Ma n na was apprehended by the po l ice party headed b y Inspector Hardeep Singh. From the possession of the petitio n er, one country-m a de pistol of .315 bore along w ith six live cartridges of the s a me bore and drug m oney amounting to ₹90,000/- w ere allegedly recovered. From the possession of c o -accused Manav Singh, one pi s tol of .32 bore, four live cartri d ges of the same b o re and drug money amounti n g to ₹1,40,000/- were recove r ed. Similarly, co-a c cused Kuldeep Singh was arre s ted by another police party hea d ed by SI Prabhjit Singh and from his possessio n one pistol of .32 bore, three l ive cartridges and drug money of ₹1,90,000/- w ere recovered, whereas from coaccused Rajbir Singh sixteen live cartridges of 12 bore and drug mone y of ₹1,30,000/- we r e recovered.

¶21

It i s also the case of the prosecutio n that earlier the petitioner had been granted the concession of bail under Secti o n 167(2) Cr.P.C. by the lear n ed predecessor Co u rt, however, thereafter the petit i oner intentionally absented him s elf from the court proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender vide o r der dated 30.11.2019. It is alleged that the petition e r did not surrender for about t h ree years and was s ubsequently re-arrested. Durin g investigation, it was also alle g ed that the petition e r was part of a criminal conspi r acy for smuggling heroin and o t her offences and th u s provisions of Section 29 of t h e NDPS Act were also attracte d in the present case.

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has contended that the petiti o ner has been falsel y implicated in the present ca s e and has nothing to do with the

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-6602-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶25

alleged offence s . It is submitted that the petitio n er is not named in the FIR and his involvement has been shown only on the basi s of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, wh i ch has no evidentiary value in t he eyes of law. It is further arg u ed that though a c o untry-made pistol of .315 bore a long with six live cartridges an d an amount of ₹9 0 ,000/- has allegedly been r e covered from the petitioner, the petitioner has a lready been in custody for the last nine months and twenty- n ine days. It is furt h er submitted that the investig a tion in the case has already been completed and the challan has been presented before the trial Court and cha r ges have also been framed, therefore the trial is li k ely to take a considerable time for its conclusion. L earned counsel further submit s that similarly situated co-acc u sed persons have a l ready been granted the concession of bail by this Court and the petitioner is rea d y to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be impose d by this Court.

¶26

Pe r contra , learned State counsel h as opposed the bail application a nd has filed the c u stody certificate, which is ta k en on record. He submitted t hat serious allegati o ns have been levelled against t h e petitioner and earlier also the b ail application of t h e petitioner was dismissed on a c count of the gravity of the offe n ce. It is further ar g ued that as many as 18 othe r criminal cases of similar na t ure involving offe n ces under the NDPS Act, Ar m s Act and Section 307 IPC are pending agains t the petitioner. Therefore, cons i dering the criminal antecedent s of the petitioner a nd the seriousness of the all e gations, he does not deserve the concession of b a il.

¶27

I h a ve heard learned counsel for th e parties and have gone through the record carefull y .

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-6602-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶30

In t he present case, serious allegat i ons have been levelled against the petitioner. As p er the prosecution case, co m mercial quantity of heroin w as recovered from the co-accused and from the p o ssession of the present petition e r a country-made pistol of .315 bore, six live cartri d ges and drug money amountin g to ₹90,000/- were recovered. It has also come on r ecord that earlier the petitioner h ad been granted t h e concession of bail under S e ction 167(2) Cr.P.C., however he misused the sa i d concession and absented hi m self from the proceedings of the Court and was declared a proclaimed offende r vide order dated 30.11.2019. T he conduct of the petitioner thus does not inspir e confidence. Moreover, it has a lso been brought t o the notice of this Court that 18 other criminal cases of si m ilar nature are pend i ng against the petitioner, which reflects his criminal antecedent s . 9. Co n sidering the gravity of the all e gations, the nature of the reco v ery effected, the pa s t conduct of the petitioner and h is involvement in multiple crim i nal cases, this Co u rt is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is d ismissed.

¶31

However, any observation made h e reinabove shall not be construe d as an expression o n the merits of the case during t r ial.

¶32

Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶33

March 05, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶34

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sajjan Alias Piddhi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Alias Piddhi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagarpreet Singh Alias Sagar Vs State of Punjab

Dikshit Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Shankar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kartik Bakshi Vs State of Haryana

Bhupender @ Mogli Vs State of Haryana

Jagdeep Singh Alias Jagga Vs State of Punjab