Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4132 (PNJ)

BOBBY ALIAS GULLI v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/73597/2025 · 2026-03-06

Mandeep Pannu

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-73597- 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Bobby @ Gulli State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 34 dated 28.02.2024 Psychotropic Substances 25 of Arms Act added later) Ferozepur. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024, the Station House Officer of Police Stati was present on patrol duty in the area. While the police party was near the wall of the Markfed office situated on Malwal Road, a secret informer approached and informed that Harish, Rahul and Bobby alia and that they were coming from the side of village Satiye Wala towards Basti Nizamdeen on a scooter bearing registration No. PB quantity of heroin. Acting upon the said information, a ruqa w -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 28.02.2024, initially registered under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act added later) registered at Police Station The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024, the Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar Ferozepur along with other police officials was present on patrol duty in the area. While the police party was near the wall of the Markfed office situated on Malwal Road, a secret informer approached and informed that Harish, Rahul and Bobby alias Guli were involved in selling heroin and that they were coming from the side of village Satiye Wala towards Basti Nizamdeen on a scooter bearing registration No. PB quantity of heroin. Acting upon the said information, a ruqa w -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73597-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. . This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. , initially registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Act, 1985 (Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act and Section registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024, the Station on Sadar Ferozepur along with other police officials was present on patrol duty in the area. While the police party was near the wall of the Markfed office situated on Malwal Road, a secret informer approached and s Guli were involved in selling heroin and that they were coming from the side of village Satiye Wala towards Basti Nizamdeen on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-05-AL-2580 carrying a huge quantity of heroin. Acting upon the said information, a ruqa was sent to the police This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Act, 1985 (Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act and Section Sadar Ferozepur, District The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024, the Station on Sadar Ferozepur along with other police officials was present on patrol duty in the area. While the police party was near the wall of the Markfed office situated on Malwal Road, a secret informer approached and s Guli were involved in selling heroin and that they were coming from the side of village Satiye Wala towards Basti 2580 carrying a huge as sent to the police TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73597- station for registration of the FIR under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered. investigation, Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added. The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025 and has been in custody since then. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. and Rahul, have been granted the Bench of this Court bail on the ground of parity. custody since 21.05.2025 and the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 4. Per contra submits that the allegations against pertain to offences under the NDPS Act. However, it is not disputed that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and that the main accused namely, the concession of regular counsel further submits that three the petitioner. 5. I have heard record. 6. The petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025. It is not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present petitioner. It -2025 (O&M) station for registration of the FIR under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered. investigation, Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025 and has been in custody Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further contended that and Rahul, have been granted the concession of Bench of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025 and the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as they to offences under the NDPS Act. However, it is not disputed that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and that the main namely, Harish and co-accused, namely, Rahul the concession of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench counsel further submits that three other cases of similar nature are pending I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025. It is not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present petitioner. It -2- station for registration of the FIR under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered. During the course of investigation, Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025 and has been in custody Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from his It is further contended that the co-accused, namely, Harish concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of s also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025 and the trial of the case is likely to take considerable , learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and the petitioner are serious in nature as they to offences under the NDPS Act. However, it is not disputed that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and that the main accused, namely, Rahul have already been granted ordinate Bench this Court. Learned State cases of similar nature are pending against learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025. It is not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present petitioner. It station for registration of the FIR under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025 and has been in custody Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from his accused, namely, Harish dinate and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of s also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025 and the trial of the case is likely to take considerable , learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and the petitioner are serious in nature as they to offences under the NDPS Act. However, it is not disputed that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and that the main already been granted Learned State against learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2025. It is not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present petitioner. It TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73597- is also a matter of record th already been granted the concession of bail by a Co 7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the bas antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleei jurisdiction of the Court etc." 8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner as well as the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considere the concession of regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the Magistrate and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. -2025 (O&M) is also a matter of record that the co-accused, namely Harish and Rahul have already been granted the concession of bail by a Co As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the bas antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleei jurisdiction of the Court etc." Without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner as well as the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considere the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. -3- accused, namely Harish and Rahul have already been granted the concession of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the Without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner as well as the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the accused, namely Harish and Rahul have ordinate Bench of this Court. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that upon the judgment of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced is of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and ng away from the Without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner as well as the fact that the trial is likely to take d view that the petitioner deserves Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 483 of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73597- 10. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of op 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 06, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the course of trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an inion on the merits of the case during the course of trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.06 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document