Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5178 (PNJ)

SUKHDEV PAL ALIAS BHERO v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/73607/2025 · 2026-03-09

Mandeep Pannu

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-73607- 138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sukhdev Pal @ Bhero State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 88 NDPS Act at Police Station City 2. As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended he disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said recovery, the present FIR w 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Sukhdev Pal @ Bhero VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in 88 dated 22.04.2025, registered under Sections at Police Station City Model Town, District Hoshiarpur As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said recovery, the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73607-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Ms. Gunjan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in , registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the , District Hoshiarpur. As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the side of Purhiran allegedly became perplexed on seeing the police party and threw a transparent polybag into the grass. On suspicion, he was apprehended, upon which disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in 22 and 29 of the As per the prosecution case, on 22.04.2025, the police party was on patrolling duty near Purhiran Bypass, Hoshiarpur, when a person coming from the seeing the police party and threw a , upon which disclosed his name as Raghu Kumar alias Raghu. After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said polybag was searched and allegedly 21 grams of intoxicant powder was recovered. On the basis of the said Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery has been planted TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73607- upon him. It is further submitted that basis of the disclosure statement arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged quantity falls within the non awaited. Learne NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and no further recovery 4. Per contra ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in the present case falls within the category of non 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it may be noticed that the alleged recovery Kumar and not from the disclosure statement of co custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is also not the case of the prosecution tha the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be on bail in the other cases as well. 6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ -2025 (O&M) upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was implicated solely on the asis of the disclosure statement. He further submitted that arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged quantity falls within the non-commercial quantity and the FSL report is still awaited. Learned counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and no further recovery is to be effected from him. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in the present case falls within the category of non- have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it may be noticed that the alleged recovery was and not from the petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Raghu Kumar custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is also not the case of the prosecution that any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be on bail in the other cases as well. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and -2- the petitioner was implicated solely on the . He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged commercial quantity and the FSL report is still d counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, as per the custody certificate placed on record, it is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in -commercial quantity. have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it was effected from co-accused Raghu . The petitioner was apprehended solely on the accused Raghu Kumar. The petitioner has remained in custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is t any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be 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 the petitioner was implicated solely on the the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025 and is in custody since then. It is argued that the alleged commercial quantity and the FSL report is still d counsel further submits that though three other FIRs under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail in those cases. It is contended that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases under the NDPS Act. However, the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2025. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery in have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it accused Raghu . The petitioner was apprehended solely on the . The petitioner has remained in custody since 17.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is t any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Although the petitioner has criminal antecedents, he is stated to be 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73607- another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen 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 observ 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 cir jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7. In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the nature of the allegations, the quantity involved being non already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitione ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 09, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) 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 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 jurisdiction of the Court etc." In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the nature of the allegations, the quantity involved being non already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitione ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove nstrued as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the 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 ed 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 cumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the nature of the allegations, the quantity involved being non-commercial, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove nstrued as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the 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 ed 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 cumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the nature of commercial, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession r is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document