21.11.2025 Lovepreet S preet Singh @ Love v. State of Pun of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M- -41246-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 222 CRM-M-41246-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 Lovepreet S preet Singh @ Love v. State of Pun of Punjab …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate fo cate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurdeep Singh, AAG, Pun , Punjab. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. At the outset, learned coun counsel for petitioner submits th its that inadvertent ertently in the petition, offence under under Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Ac PS Act, which was h was added later, could not be mentio mentioned. He has prayed that the sa the said offence be ce be also read in petition as well as in ll as in the order. 2. 3. Heard. Petitioner, an accused in cas
Legal Reasoning
in case FIR No. 59 dated 13.05.202 5.2025, registered a tered against him for commission of of n of offences under Section 105 of BN of BNS and Section Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, at Po , at Police Station Sirhali, District Tar ict Tarn Taran, has , has filed the present petition under S under Section 483 of BNSS for grant o grant of bail. 4. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Sukhdev Singh, son of Tara ara Singh, aged about 62 years, ars, a Labourer b rer by profession, set the criminal la al law in motion by filing a complain plaint, GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -41246-2025 2- -2 pointing th g therein that he has four children, ren, out of which Sandeep Singh, age , aged about 22 ye 22 years, was the youngest . Unfort fortunately, the boy had fallen in ba in bad company a ny and had started consuming th g the drugs. At about 10 AM o M on 9.5.2025, t 25, the boy returned home and aske asked his mother Karam Kaur to giv o give him some m me money as he wanted to buy drug drugs. This request was not accede ceded to. Unhap happily, the boy left home. At abo about 5 PM, someone intimated hi d him (complaina lainant) that Sandeep Singh is lying ing unconscious near the old buildin ilding of Hospital pital Dhotian near Dana Mandi. He . He rushed there and noticed that h hat his son, who w ho was lying at the disclosed site site, had passed away. Seeing th ng the deteriorate rated condition of the body, family mily friends and the elders counsel lled not to get get the post mortem conducted. A d. Accordingly, at about 12 PM o M on 10.5.2025, 025, the boy was cremated. On acco account of losing a young child, he ( he (c) did not ini t initiate any action as he was no s not in proper frame of mind. Th . The present co t complaint was filed on 13.5.2025 .2025 alleging therein that enquiri uiries made at his t his own level revealed that Sande ndeep had died due to drug overdo erdose given by s by some persons. He requested ted that those, who had given/sol /sold/ consumed ed drugs to Sandeep be caught ght hold of and action be initiate itiated against the t them. On the basis of said complain plaint, a formal case vide FIR No. o. 59 dated 13.0 13.05.2025, was registered against ainst him for commission of offenc fences under Sect Section 105 of BNS and Section 2 on 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, at Polic Police Station Sirh Sirhali, District Tarn Taran. 5. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner submits that petitioner ha ner has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case. t case. The fact that the FIR was lodge s lodged after three three days suggests that the facts h facts have been twisted and coloure oloured version has on has been introduced. Petitioner, w ner, who had no prior enmity with th with the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -41246-2025 3- -3 deceased w ased was not in any which way involv involved in the incident. Further, the er, there is no eye w eye witness to the entire incident, w ent, who had allegedly seen petition etitioner administeri nistering drugs to the son of complain mplainant. That apart, the allegation o ation of the compla omplainant that his son Sandeep Sing p Singh died due to drug overdose als ose also remains un unsubstantiated, for there is no is no medical report, even the po he post mortem exa em examination of the dead body was dy was not conducted. It is further th ther the submission ission of learned counsel that investi investigations are complete, for challa challan has been fil een filed but conclusion of trial is like is likely to take sometime, thus, furth further incarceratio ceration of petitioner, who has in cus ustody since 14.5.2025, would n uld not serve any u any useful purpose as the same wo me would not only be violative of his rights unde under Article 21 of the Constitution tution of India. Prayer for allowing the petition has has been made. 6. Status report by way of affi affidavit of Lovkesh, PPS, Depu Deputy Superintend rintendent of Police, Sub Division, Pa Patti, District Tarn Taran on beha behalf of responde spondent-State has been filed. The sam same is taken on record. Per contr ontra, learned Sta State counsel while opposing the the submissions raised by learne learned counsel for for the petitioner, submits that th the younger son of complainant inant, a young boy, boy, aged about 22 years, died to to drug overdose. The investigatio tigation conducted ucted by the police authorities rev revealed that petitioner and oth other accused, who are habitual drug sellers int intentionally administered drugs drugs to the boy kn knowing fully well that he could could die due to overdose. In view view of gravity and and seriousness of offence, it has has been prayed that no case for gra grant of bail to petitioner is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel for for the parties and perused the documents ments on record. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -41246-2025 4- -4 8. Factual aspects of the case lea leading to the registration of the FI FIR have alread already been noticed in para 3 of the the order. In view of the submission issions advanced by learned counsel for the pet petitioner, but without commentin menting further on on the merits of the case, the fact that petitioner has been in custod custody since 14.0 .05.2025, investigations qua him a him are complete, for challan ha llan has already bee dy been filed, as also taking note of t te of the fact that out of 14 prosecutio secution witnesses, esses, none has been examined till dat till date, thus, possibility of completio pletion of trial in t al in the near future is quite remote, l mote, lenient view is taken in favour o vour of petitioner w ioner who is not involved in any other y other criminal case, by extending hi ing him concession ession of bail, for his further incarcera carceration would not only be violativ iolative of his right s rights under Article 21 of the Consti Constitution of India, including right right to speedy trial dy trial but would also be against the p t the principle of “Bail is a general ru al rule and incarc carceration is an exception” as held as 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. 9. 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 shall no l not leave the country without prio prior permission of the trial Court a urt and shall surrender the passport port if any, before the learned trial co ial court. (ii) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (iii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate the th prosecution witnesses. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -41246-2025 5- -5 (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 which 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 g such 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 obile 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 same 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 other condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing the th petitioner. 10. 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. Fur Further, if it is found that petitione titioner is involved in some other cas er case, the relief gr elief granted to petitioner shall automa cated. utomatically be deemed to be vacated. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -41246-2025 6- -6 11.
Decision
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. .2025 21.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document