CRM-M v. State of Pun

Judgment

1. This is 2nd petition for grant of rant of bail filed by petitioner u/s 483 o 483 of BNSS, an a an accused in case FIR No. 0119 da dated 27.09.2025, registered again against him under under Section 61 of Excise Act, at at Police Station Taragarh, Distri District Pathankot. ankot. The earlier petition seeking sim ng similar relief, filed by petitioner wa ner was dismissed a issed as withdrawn from this Court on on 16.1.2026.

2. Relevant facts necessary for d y for disposal of the petition are bein re being taken from from para 5(E) of the status report d eport dated 09.03.2026 filed by way o way of affidavit of avit of Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, D PS, Deputy Superintendent of Polic f Police (Rural), Dis al), District Pathankot. The same are are noticed hereinbelow:- “5 (E). That on 27.09.20

09.2025, the police party headed b ed by ASI Satpal and other polic police officials in connection wi patrolling and search of bad bad elements were going towards th ds the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 2- -2 Taragarh, Baknor, Rakwal, al, Gajju Jagir, Narayanpur whic police party reached at v at village Gajju Jagir, a secr secret information was received, on , on the basis of which police checke at Narayanpur road near Ka r Kathlor Road, a person was see s seen sitting with plastic container iner, on seeing the police party h rty he became perplexed and tried to ed to get away, who was caught by th by the police officials and on asking king he disclosed his name as Gold olda, on checking, 40 bottles of illi f illicit liquor (39 bottles of 750 M 0 ML and 1 bottle 570 ML) were r re recovered from petitioner-accuse Goldy. Recovery effected: That 35 bo 5 bottles of illicit liquor (34 bottles tles of 750 ML and 1 bottle 570 M 70 ML) (total 26250 ML) have bee recovered from petitioner-accu accused Goldy.” Petitioner moved an applicatio lication for grant of bail before learne learned Sessions Ju ions Judge, Pathankot. The same w ame was dismissed vide order date r dated

21.11.2025 .2025. Aggrieved of which, the pr the present petition has been filed fo iled for grant of bai t of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner contends that petitioner, , an active local e local politician has been falsely impl y implicated in the present case only o only on account of unt of upcoming Zila Parishad election lections. No such incident, as alleged leged in

the FIR, ev IR, ever occurred. Nothing was reco s recovered from the possession of th n of the petitioner. ioner. False recovery of liquor was pl was planted upon him only with a vie a view to drag him ag him in the present case. Further, rther, on a bare perusal of the FIR, n FIR, no offence un ce under Section 123 of BNS is m S is made out, for petitioner did n did not nister administer intended administer poison/harmf harmful substance/i tance/intoxicating drug to any person n erson nor the police authorities receive received GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 3- -3 any compla complaint to this effect. Thus, it is a it is apparent that the said Section tion has been added added only to make the incident m ent more serious/grave/heinous. It . It is further the er the submission of learned counsel th nsel that since the withdrawal of the I f the Ist petition, ch ion, challan accompanied by the repo e report of Chemical Examiner stand stands filed, as p , as per which liquor was not spu ot spurious (hooch). This being th ing the ‘Changed C nged Circumstance” necessitating filin filing of 2nd petition seeking relief o relief of bail. The next leg of submission of ion of learned counsel for the petition etitioner is that in t at in the wake of challan having bee g been filed recently on 6.2.2026, th 026, the likelihood ihood of completion of trial in the n the near future is quite remote. Thu e. Thus, when view viewed in the factual scenario of t o of the case, further incarceration o ation of petitioner ioner, who has been in custody since since 27.9.2025, would not serve an rve any useful purp l purpose. Prayer for allowing the peti petition has been made.

4. Per contra, while controverti roverting the request for grant of bai bail, learned Sta State counsel submits that 35 bottle bottles of liquor (34 bottles of 750 M ML and 1 bott bottle 570 ML) (total 26250 ML) ML) were recovered from a plast plastic container being carried by the petitioner. tioner. There is nothing on record cord to suggest th that police officials had any prior enmity and, thus, false implicated icated present petitioner. That apart, apart, past antecedents of petitioner quite questi questionable; he being involved in 4 4 other criminal cases (the details etails of which have have been mentioned in para 5(H) of the status report), 3 of which under the the Excise Act. Learned State coun counsel further contends that if reli relief sought for for is allowed/granted, there is is every likelihood of petition etitioner committing itting yet another offence, as also fleeing from the process of justic justice by not app appearing in the Court and overa overawing the complainant and oth related witn witnesses are quite high. Dismissal for. issal of petition has been prayed for. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 4- -4

5. Heard learned counsel for for the parties and perused documents ments on record.

6. It is settled that grant or refus refusal of bail is the discretion of Court. Fac Factors to be kept in mind while while granting the concession of ba have been been discussed by the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court in several cases. Th The essence bei being that while exercising powers powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pa Pari materia to to Section 483 of BNSS), the Cou Court has to take into consideratio deration various par para meters including the nature of of the charge, evidence, seriousne iousness and gravity gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he he is convicted icted, his past antecedents etc. Thus Thus, there can be no straight jack jacket formula for for exercising the discretion and ea each case has to be examined on on its peculiar fac facts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi adi v. State of U. f U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR CR (Criminal) 586, upheld the ord he order of the High e High Court in granting bail to the s o the second respondent/accused on th d on the ground that nd that he had been in custody for a l for a long period and the possibility o bility of trial being c being concluded in the near future was re was remote. Recently, a Co-ordinate Ben e Bench of this Court in Neelkam Singh Alia Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab pa passed in CRM-M-39765-2024 ha 024 has held that a that although an accused may hav y have past criminal antecedents b nts but nonetheless theless if the incarceration period eriod is long, he is entitled for th for the concession ession of bail. “Therefore, to elucidate furth further, this Court is conscious of th of the basic and fundamental princip inciple of law that right to speedy tri y trial is a part of reasonable, fair an ir and just procedure enshrined und Article 21 of the Constitution tion of India. This constitutional rig GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 5- -5 cannot be denied to the accus ccused as is the mandate of the Ape Apex court in “Hussainara Kha Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Hom Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Pa r, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besid esides this, reference can be drawn u wn upon that pre-conviction period iod of the under-trials should be as as short as possible keeping in vie n view the nature of accusation and t nd the severity of punishment in ca n case of conviction and the nature o re of supporting evidence, reasonab apprehension of tampering wi g with the witness or apprehension ion of threat to the complainant. As f . As far as the pendency of other cas and involvement of the petitio etitioner in other cases is concerne erned, reliance can be placed upon th on the order of this Court rendered red in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as d as “Baljinder Singh alias Rock v ck vs. State of Punjab” decided ed on 02.03.2023, wherein, whi referring Article 21 of the Co Constitution of India, this Court ha rt has held that no doubt, at the tim e time of granting bail, the crimin iminal antecedents of the petitioner ner are to be looked into but at th at the same time it is equally true rue that the appreciation of evidenc idence during the course of trial has t has to be looked into with reference nce to the evidence in that case alo e alone and not with respect to th to the evidence in the other pending ding cases. In such eventuality, stri , strict adherence to the rule of denia denial of bail on account of pendenc of other cases/convictions in s in all probability would land th d the petitioner in a situation of den f denial of concession of bail.”

7. Reverting back to the facts of of the case in hand, factual aspec aspects leading to to lodging of registration of FIR ha have already been noticed in para para 2 of this orde order. Be that as it may, in view of of submissions advanced by learne learned GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 6- -6 counsel for for the petitioner, but without com commenting further on the merits erits of the case, le lest it may prejudice the trial, taki taking into consideration the fact th petitioner ioner has been in custody since 27.9

27.9.2025, investigations are comple omplete but the pros prospect of completion of trial in ne near future is quite remote (as non of prosecut osecution witnesses have been exami examined), this Court is of the opinio opinion that his (P) his (P) further incarceration would no uld not only be violative of his righ is rights under Artic r Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind of India, including right to speedy tri edy trial but would would also be against the principle ciple of “Bail is a general rule an e and incarcerati eration is an exception” as held b held by Hon’ble Supreme Court ourt in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh R.C.R. esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R (Criminal) inal) 131.

8. Resultantly, petitioner is grant s granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furn s furnishing bail bonds and two loc o local sureties to the satisfaction o ction of learned tria ed trial Court/Duty Magistrate concer oncerned. The petitioner shall abide b bide by the followin ollowing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall su ll surrender his passport before th re the learned trial court and shall n all not leave the country without prio t prior urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9137-2026 7- -7 facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th ith the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any oth condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order.

10. In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2026

27.03.2026 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document