218. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Darshan Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN CRM-18841 legible copies of Annexures P CRM-M-24158 1. 2023/439 Cr.P.C. No.106, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Section 105 of BNS (Section 304 IPC) and Section Station Tripuri, District Patiala. 2. complainant provided by the petitioner along with other co FIR. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Darshan Singh @ Babbi Versus State of Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab. ----- ALOK JAIN, J. (ORAL) 18841-2026 Application seeking exemption from filing certified/ typed / legible copies of Annexures P-1 to P-19, is allowed as prayed for. 24158-2026 Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023/439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.106, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Section 105 of BNS (Section 304 IPC) and Sections 29 and 27 of NDPS Act, Station Tripuri, District Patiala. As per prosecution case, the son complainant (Balwinder Singh) died due to overdose of intoxicant allegedly provided by the petitioner along with other co IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24158-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 .... Petitioner .... Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Singh, AAG, Punjab. Application seeking exemption from filing certified/ typed / 19, is allowed as prayed for. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, , for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.106, dated 01.05.2025, registered under Section 105 of BNS, 2023 29 and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police As per prosecution case, the son (Simran Bagga) of the died due to overdose of intoxicant allegedly provided by the petitioner along with other co-accused. Hence, the present Application seeking exemption from filing certified/ typed / , , for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR , 2023 1985, at Police of the died due to overdose of intoxicant allegedly ent SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24158-2026 (O&M) - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was present at the spot. The petitioner was nominated in the present FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Binder and Rani Kaur alias Kaati, who too were nominated on the disclosure statement of Ranjot Singh alias Gaggi, as suppliers of contraband. Except the disclosure statement of co-accused, no specific role, recovery, or independent material has ever come on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Sukhwinder @ Binder and Rani @ Kaati have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in CRM-M- 56403 of 2025-Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder Versus State of Punjab and order dated 13.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-10678 of 2026-Rani @ Kaati Versus State of Punjab, and the petitioner seeks parity with the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submits that there are total 18 prosecution witnesses and out of which, only three have been examined so far and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24158-2026 (O&M) - 3 - 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 04.07.2026 of Jangjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, District Patiala, on behalf of respondent- State, as well as the custody certificate dated 04.07.2026 of the petitioner. The same are taken on record. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as the petitioner used to procure narcotics substances from an unknown person and thereafter, supplied it to other co-accused for further sale. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 5. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”. 6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it has been 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 SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24158-2026 (O&M) - 4 - be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein- below:- "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." 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. It light of the above and considering the facts of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 1 year and 2 months; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; and charges have been framed; and more so, co-accused have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Further keeping in view the fact that trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Without commenting upon the merit of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24158-2026 (O&M) - 5 - 10. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is further made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found in any such activity once again, the State would be at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE July 06, 2026 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document