Goldy Alias Goldy Kumar Vs State of Punjab

This is 2^nd petition for grant o f bail filed by petitioner u/s 48 3 of BNSS, a n accused in case FIR No. 0119 d ated 27.09.2025, registered aga i nst him und e r Section 61 of Excise Act, a t Police Station Taragarh, Dis t rict Pathanko t . The earlier petition seeking s i milar relief, filed by petitioner w as dismisse d as withdrawn from this Court o n 16.1.2026.

¶15

Relevant facts necessary fo r disposal of the petition are b e ing taken fro m para 5(E) of the status repor t dated 09.03.2026 filed by wa y of affidavit of Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Po l ice (Rural), D istrict Pathankot. The same are noticed hereinbelow:-

¶16

“5 (E). That on 27.09. 2 025, the police party headed by ASI Satpal and other po l ice officials in connection w ith patrolling and search of ba d elements were going towards the

¶17

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-9137-2026 -2-

¶19

Taragarh, Baknor, Rakwal, Gajju Jagir, Narayanpur w h ich police party reached at village Gajju Jagir, a se c ret information was received, o n the basis of which police checked at Narayanpur road near K athlor Road, a person was seen sitting with plastic contain e r, on seeing the police party he became perplexed and tried t o get away, who was caught by the police officials and on aski n g he disclosed his name as Go l da, on checking, 40 bottles of i l licit liquor (39 bottles of 750 M L and 1 bottle 570 ML) were recovered from petitioner-acc u sed Goldy.

¶20

Recovery effected: That 35 b ottles of illicit liquor (34 bottle s of 750 ML and 1 bottle 570 ML) (total 26250 ML) have been recovered from petitioner-a c cused Goldy.”

¶21

Petitioner moved an applica t ion for grant of bail before lear n ed Sessions Judge, Pathankot. The same was dismissed vide order d a ted 21.11.20 2 5. Aggrieved of which, the p resent petition has been filed for grant of b ail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the pet i tioner contends that petitioner , an active lo c al politician has been falsely i m plicated in the present case onl y on account o f upcoming Zila Parishad electi o ns. No such incident, as allege d in the FIR, e ver occurred. Nothing was re c overed from the possession of the petitione r . False recovery of liquor was p lanted upon him only with a v i ew to drag him in the present case. Further, on a bare perusal of the FIR, no offence u nder Section 123 of BNS is made out, for petitioner did not administ e r nor intended to a d minister any poison/har m ful substanc e /intoxicating drug to any perso n nor the police authorities recei v ed

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-9137-2026 -3-

¶25

any com p laint to this effect. Thus, it is apparent that the said Section has been added only to make the incident more serious/grave/heinous. I t is further th e submission of learned counsel that since the withdrawal of th e Ist petition, c hallan accompanied by the re p ort of Chemical Examiner sta n ds filed, as per which liquor was not s p urious (hooch) . This being the ‘Change d Circumstance” necessitating fi l ing of 2^nd petition seeking relie f of bail.

¶26

The next leg of submission o f learned counsel for the petiti o ner is that in the wake of challan having b e en filed recently on 6.2.2026, the likelihoo d of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. T h us, when viewed in the factual scenario o f the case, further incarceratio n of petitione r , who has been in custody sin c e 27.9.2025, would not serve a ny useful pu r pose. Prayer for allowing the p e tition has been made. 4. Per contra, while controve r ting the request for grant of b ail, learned S t ate counsel submits that 35 bot t les of liquor (34 bottles of 750 M L and 1 b o ttle 570 ML) (total 26250 M L ) were recovered from a plastic container being carried by the petition e r. There is nothing on recor d to suggest t hat police officials had any prior enmity and, thus, fal s ely implicate d present petitioner. That apar t , past antecedents of petitioner are quite que s tionable; he being involved in 4 other criminal cases (the detail s of which ha v e been mentioned in para 5(H) of the status report), 3 of which are under the Excise Act. Learned State co u nsel further contends that if r e lief sought f o r is allowed/granted, there i s every likelihood of petiti o ner committi n g yet another offence, as also fleeing from the process of jus t ice by not a p pearing in the Court and ove r awing the complainant and o t her related w i tnesses are quite high. Dismiss a l of petition has been prayed fo r .

¶27

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-9137-2026 -4-

¶29

Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶30

It is settled that grant or re fu sal of bail is the discretion of the Court. F actors to be kept in mind wh i le granting the concession of b ail have bee n discussed by the Hon’ble Su p reme Court in several cases. T he essence being that while exercising pow e rs under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ( P ari materia t o Section 483 of BNSS), the C ourt has to take into considera t ion various p a ra meters including the nature o f the charge, evidence, serious n ess and grav i ty of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if h e is convicte d , his past antecedents etc. Th u s, there can be no straight ja c ket formula fo r exercising the discretion and e ach case has to be examined o n its peculiar f acts.

¶31

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586, upheld the o r der of the Hi g h Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground t h at he had been in custody for a long period and the possibilit y of trial bein g concluded in the near future w a s remote.

¶32

Recently, a Co-ordinate B e nch of this Court in Neelkamal Singh Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab p assed in CRM-M-39765-2024 has held that although an accused may h a ve past criminal antecedents but nonethel e ss if the incarceration perio d is long, he is entitled for the concessi o n of bail.

¶33

“Therefore, to elucidate fur t her, this Court is conscious o f the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy t r ial is a part of reasonable, fair a nd just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. This constitutional r i ght

¶34

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-9137-2026

¶36

-5-

¶37

cannot be denied to the acc u sed as is the mandate of the A p ex court in “ Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98 . Bes i des this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction perio d of the under-trials should be a s short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation an d the severity of punishment in c ase of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reason a ble apprehension of tampering w ith the witness or apprehensio n of threat to the complainant. A s far as the pendency of other c a ses and involvement of the peti t ioner in other cases is concer n ed, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendere d in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled a s “ Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.

¶38

State of Punjab ” decide d on 02.03.2023, wherein, w h ile referring Article 21 of the C onstitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the t ime of granting bail, the crim i nal antecedents of the petitione r are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally tru e that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial ha s to be looked into with referenc e to the evidence in that case a lone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pendi n g cases. In such eventuality, s t rict adherence to the rule of de n ial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions i n all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of d e nial of concession of bail.”

¶39

Reverting back to the facts o f the case in hand, factual asp e cts leading t o lodging of registration of FIR h ave already been noticed in pa r a 2 of this or d er. Be that as it may, in view o f submissions advanced by lear n ed

¶40

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-9137-2026 -6-

¶42

counsel fo r the petitioner, but without c o mmenting further on the merit s of the case, l est it may prejudice the trial, ta k ing into consideration the fact t hat petitione r has been in custody since 27. 9 .2025, investigations are comp l ete but the p r ospect of completion of trial in n ear future is quite remote (as n o ne of prosec u tion witnesses have been exa m ined), this Court is of the opi n ion that his ( P ) further incarceration would not only be violative of his ri g hts under Ar t icle 21 of the Constitution of I n dia, including right to speedy t rial but woul d also be against the principl e 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

¶43

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:-

¶44

(i) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶45

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

¶46

(iii) The petitioner shall s urrender his passport before the learned trial court and shall not leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court .

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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

¶49

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRM-M-9137-2026 -7-

¶51

facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶52

(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. (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.

¶53

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

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 27.03.2026 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Goldy Alias Goldy Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goldy Alias Goldy Kumar 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

Daulat Masih @ Daulat Ram @ Guri Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Anothers

Kirandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sahil @ Sahil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

State of Haryana Vs Muni Ram and Others