Jeeta v. State of Punjab
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-45389 45389-2024(O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Date of decision: @ Jeeta Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. . Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The instant second petition has been filed under The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 (Section 29 bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Punjab. at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Pun at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Pun 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of . He further contends that the 2500 Tramadol Tablets had been effected. He further contends that the 2500 Tramadol Table petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that and that only 04 witnesses have the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that only 04 witnesses have the petitioner is not involved in any other case been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104 CRM CRM-M-45389-2024(O&M) 2 3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail petition (i.e. CRM-M-58667-2023) earlier filed by the petitioner was di petition (i.e. CRM 2023) earlier filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have been given up and that regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not petitioner is not involved in any other case and that he has dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that he has dispute that the already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as on date. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have ith the present petition. gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition. gone through the documents appended alongw 5. Notwithstanding that the earlier petition (i.e. CRM Notwithstanding the earlier petition (i.e. CRM-M-58667- 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months d since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having have elapsed since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having d since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial , an accused would be within its rights to move having not made much headway, an accused would be within its rights to move having not made much bail and that long incarceration of a subsequent application for grant of regular bail and that long incarceration of a subsequent application for grant of regular the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant of regular bail. 6. Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the petitioner, I deem it stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the p stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the p appropriate to allow allow the instant petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to rt/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Cou SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104 CRM CRM-M-45389-2024(O&M) concerned. 3 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an The observation made hereinabove shall not be expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case available material. on the basis of available material. 28.10.2025 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document