MANJINDER SINGH ALIAS MANI v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In view of the final adjudication of the present petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to these proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof.
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Hitesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
First petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 52 dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
10.03.2026, while the police party was on routine patrolling duty for checking suspicious persons and vehicles, they noticed two cars stationed on the roadside near New Colony along the pucca road, with four young men standing nearby. On noticing the arrival of the police party, the said CRM-M-35762-2026 (O&M) -:2:- persons allegedly became perplexed and attempted to flee. Thereby arousing suspicion. Upon being apprehended, they disclosed their identities as Naresh Kumar alias Minnu, son of Banarsi Lal, resident of Qadian, District Gurdaspur; Manjinder Singh alias Money, son of Major Singh, resident of Mehandpur, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar; Gurinder Singh, son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Mehandpur, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar; and Sodhi Singh, son of Bahadur Singh, resident of Village Ramgarh Jhungian, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
2.1. Thereafter, the personal search of accused Naresh Kumar alias Minnu was conducted, during which a transparent polythene envelope containing a brown-coloured substance was allegedly recovered from the lower front pocket of his jacket. Upon examination with a Drug Detection Kit, the recovered substance tested positive for Heroin, and on weighment, including the polythene envelope, its total weight was found to be 260 grams. During the personal search of co-accused Manjinder Singh alias Money-petitioner, a sum of 55,000/- ₹ in Indian currency was allegedly recovered from the right-side pocket of his trousers. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and recoveries, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused.
Notice of motion. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The custody certificate tendered by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Opposing the prayer for regular bail, learned State counsel submits that a sum of 55,000/- ₹ was recovered from the right-side CRM-M-35762-2026 (O&M) -:3:- pocket of the trousers of the applicant-petitioner, which, coupled with the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the co-accused, prima facie establishes the petitioner's active association with the alleged offence. It is, therefore, contended that, having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the applicant-petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book and the material available on record with their able assistance.
Admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant-petitioner, and the only recovery allegedly effected from him is a sum of 55,000/- in cash. The recovery of 260 ₹ grams of heroin, which constitutes the principal incriminating material, was allegedly effected from the conscious possession of co-accused Naresh Kumar alias Minnu. As per the custody certificate, the applicant- petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and has remained in judicial custody since 10.03.2026. The investigation stands concluded, and the trial is not likely to commence, much less conclude, in the near future. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant-petitioner incarcerated pending trial.
Operative part
6.1. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the applicant-petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- CRM-M-35762-2026 (O&M) -:4:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank CRM-M-35762-2026 (O&M) -:5:- accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any.
Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.
In view of the final adjudication of the present petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to these proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof.
10.07.2026 Gaurav Sorot ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No CRM-M-35762-2026 (O&M) -:6:- Whether reportable? Yes / No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 21, 29.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 10 Jul 2026. The bench was VIRINDER AGGARWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.