INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the third instant petition under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying for grant of Regular Bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.1 dtd. 12/6/2017 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station: Special Task Force, Phase-IV, Mohali, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, under Sec. 59(2) (b) of NDPS Act, read with Ss. 218, 466, 471, 120-B, IPC (Sec. 21, 22 of NDPS Act and Sec. 384, 409, 482 IPC and Sec. 25 of Arms Act added later on).

(2.) It is apt to mention here that earlier bail application i.e BA-965 of 2020 preferred before Special Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali) had been dismissed vide order dtd. 23/6/2020 (Annexure P-13). Then petitioner filed bail application CRM-M-19751-2020 before this Court and vide order dtd. 7/8/2020 the same was dismissed (Annexure P-14). Thereafter petitioner filed second bail application CRM-M-14720-2021 but the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 17/2/2023 (Annexure P-15). Petitioner challenged the same before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 32299-2023 which eventually was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 18/10/2023 (Annexure P-16). After some time petitioner again filed bail application BA-3824-2024 before the Special Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and vide order dtd. 11/12/2024 (Annexure P-17) the same was again dismissed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner had inter alia contended that the petitioner who was serving as Inspector in Punjab Police and had been a part of various operations leading arrest of drug traffickers, got commendation and appreciation certificates, besides gallantry award as well. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the alleged recovery has been planted just to ruin the career of the petitioner. The allegations levelled in the FIR are baseless and fictitious. It is contended that co-accused of the petitioner namely Ajaib Singh and Sahib Singh had already been granted concession of regular bail. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12/6/2017 and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient time. He further pointed out that even the witnesses examined by the prosecution are discrepant and the prosecution will not be able to substantiate its case against the petitioner in any manner. He submits that petitioner is lingering in custody for last more than 8 years, as such, the prayer for grant of bail has been made.