CRM-M-38555-2024 -1- 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38555-2024 Date of Decision:14.05.2025 TEJPAL BAWA ALIAS MOHIT SHARMA ALIAS TEJPAL SINGH …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.161 dated 02.07.2022, registered under Sections 22 of NDPS Act 1985, Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. 2. As per case of the prosecution, there had been a recovery of 1030 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt (Tramadol Hcl.) from the present petitioner, which falls under the category of “commercial quantity”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 02.07.2022 and is in custody for the last about 02 years and 10 months. He further submits that the investigation is complete and the challan VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.15 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-38555-2024 -2- has already been presented before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP No. 6690 of 2022, titled as “Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “2. The allegations are that on a secret information, the police authorities intercepted two vehicles on 23.06.2020 i.e. one 'Gray' coloured 'Honda City' car and the second 'White' coloured ' Swift Dzire' car. On an interrogation at the spot, Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya, Rishab Kumar Maurya and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla were found to be occupants of the 'Honda City' car whereas the petitioner was driving the 'Swift Dzire' car. On taking a search, more than 92 kgs. Ganja was allegedly recovered from 'Honda City' car where as more than 65 kgs. Ganja was recovered from 'Swift Dzire' Car. The accused were arrested at the spot. The petitioner is, thus, in custody since 24.06.2020. 3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed. 4. For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.15 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-38555-2024 -3- 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail. He further submits that one more case has been registered against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 02.07.2022 and is in custody for the last about 02 years and 10 months. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is on bail in the said case. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 7. Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (Supra), the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned. VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.15 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-38555-2024 -4- (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. (v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court. (vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously. (vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. (viii) The petitioner shall report every 1st Monday in English calander month before the concerned SHO till the conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his presence by making an entry in the Rojnamcha. In case, he does not report on every 1st Monday before the concerned SHO, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the State of Punjab shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this regard. 8. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard. 14.05.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.15 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order