Dharminder Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-41378-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213
CRM-M-41378-2026
Decided on : 05.11.2026
DHARMINDER SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. DPS Bajwa, Advocate, and
Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurpartap Singh, AAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
nd
1. The instant 2 petition has been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a
criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed
hereunder:-
Name of
Petitioner
(s)
FIR
No.
Date Section(s) Police
Station
District
Dharmind
44 26.02.2025 22(C) of NDPS Act,
Phillaur Jalandhar
er Singh,
and sections 345(3),
238(a) of BNS
[corresponding to
sections 482, 201 of
IPC]
aged
about 45
years
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail
petition i.e. CRM-M-7497-2026, filed by the petitioner-Dharminder
Singh, was dismissed by this Court at that stage, vide order dated
08.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), on the basis of incorrect information
furnished by the State that total seven other cases were registered against
the petitioner.
However, subsequently, petitioner came to know that an
incorrect factual position had been projected by the State in its status
report, as, in fact, only one case, i.e. the present one, was pending against
him. It is in these circumstances that petitioner has approached this Court
for the second time, seeking the concession of regular bail.
3. On 30.10.2026, the following order was passed by this
Court:-
“2. First bail petition i.e. CRM-M-7497-2026 was
dismissed at that stage on 08.04.2026 (Annexure P-5).
From the status report, it was recorded that petitioner
was involved in 07 other cases under the provisions of
NDPS Act, and out of which, in 03 cases, he has been
convicted. The details of which, are as under:
“CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
9. That as per record, apart from instant case FIR,
following FIR(s) are registered against the petitioner:
Sr.
No.
FIR Particulars Status
1. FIR No.86 dated 19.12.2016 under Sections 21, 22 of NDPS
Act, registered at P.S. Division No.1, Jalandhar Status
Under Trial
2. FIR No.3 dated 15.08.2018 under Sections 21 of NDPS Act,
registered at P.S. Sadar Pathankot, Pathankot
Under Trial
3. FIR No. 110 dated 30.09.2019 under Sections 21, 29 of NDPS
Act, registered at P.S. Dhariwal, Gurdaspur
Under Trial
4. FIR No. 13 dated 24.01.2023 under Section 21 of NDPS Act,
registered at P.S. Sujanpur, Pathankot
Convicted
5. FIR No.66 dated 26.03.2023 under Sections 21(b), 29 of NDPS Convicted
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 3
Act, registered at P.S. Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural)
6. FIR No. 175 dated 01.07.2023 under Sections 21(b) of NDPS
Act, registered at P.S. Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural)
Convicted
7. FIR No.228 dated 16.08.2024 under Sections 21(b), 22 of NDPS
Act, registered at P.S. Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural)
Under Trial
3. Custody certificate dated 27.10.2026 has been
filed in the Court today and as per custody certificate
earlier petitioner is shown to be accused in one case
i.e. FIR No. 207 dated 23.09.2008 registered under
Section 22-61-85 of NDPS Act at Police Station
Phillaur, District Jalandhar and in the said case
petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on
15.09.2011 to undergo RI for only 03 months with fine
of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo RI for 01 month.
4. Learned State counsel seeks an opportunity to
clear the position, as to why in the status report filed
in earlier petition was containing the details of 07 FIR
against the petitioner.
5. Today, referring to the copies of the judgments
and the FIR (in total 6 cases), learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in none of those 06 cases,
which are discussed in the previous bail order also,
petitioner was found involved as accused. The
judgments and the FIR today produced in the Court
also taken on record.
6. List again on 31.10.2026.
7. To be shown in the urgent list.”
4. On 31.10.2026, the following order was passed by this
Court:-
“Learned State counsel, on instructions from
Inspector SHO Balwinder Singh, expresses his serious
concern of giving false information in the status
report filed in the proceedings of case bearing
No.CRM-M-7497-2026 which was dismissed on
08.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) on the basis of the
incorrect information regarding the cases, which were
registered against the petitioner along with status.
Learned State counsel produced the information
received from the Additional Superintendent, Central
Jail Kapurthala and the same is reproduced as
under:-
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 4
Sr.
No.
FIR Details Present Status
1. FIR No.207, dated 23.09.2008, under Sections 22/61/85
of the NDPS Act, Police Station Phillaur
Convicted on
15.09.2011
2. FIR No.141, dated 17.09.2013, under Sections 22/61/85
of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sarhind, District
Fatehgarh Sahib
Acquitted
28.03.2019
3. FIR No.44, dated 26.02.2025, under Sections 22-
C/29/31/61/85 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4),
345(3) and 238(A), Police Station Phillaur
Pending
As per the information given above, only
present case is pending against the petitioner whereas
in one he was convicted on 15.09.2011 for the period
already undergone and in another Fir No.141 dated
17.09.2013, he is shown to be acquitted on
28.03.2019.
Let an affidavit be filed as to what action is
taken against the police officials, who filed the status
before this Court resulting into debarring of
considering the bail petition, involving “question of
liberty of person and the dismissal of the bail
petition.”
List again on 05.11.2026.
To be shown in the urgent list.”
5. Today, learned State counsel has placed on record an
affidavit dated 04.11.2026, of Bharat Masih Ladhar, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The
same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the said affidavit at its
appropriate place on the case file.
6. A perusal of paragraph No.9 of the aforesaid affidavit
reveals that the factual position regarding the cases registered against the
petitioner, as noticed by this Court in its order dated 31.10.2026, has been
categorically admitted to be correct.
7. In paragraph No.10 of the said affidavit, it has been
explained that Constable (now ASI) Jagdish Dhand, No. 23/JAL, the then
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 5
MHC of Police Station Phillaur, and ASI Mandeep Singh, No. 991/JAL,
had furnished incorrect information without duly verifying the
antecedents of the petitioner. The said lapse occurred on account of their
failure to properly check and verify the relevant record before filing the
status report dated 30.03.2026.
8. It has further been stated that, taking note of the aforesaid
lapse and negligence, the SHO, Police Station Phillaur, recommended
initiation of departmental action against the aforesaid officials in
accordance with law. Consequently, departmental proceedings have been
initiated against Head Constable (now ASI) Jagdish Dhand and ASI
Mandeep Singh, by way of an inquiry under the Punjab Police Rules,
vide Office Order No. 105489-92 dated 03.11.2026, issued by the office
of SSP, Jalandhar (Rural).
9. The SSP concerned shall personally ensure that the aforesaid
departmental inquiry is concluded and brought to its logical end
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today.
10. It is also considered necessary that appropriate instructions
be circulated throughout the State to all police officers dealing with
matters pending before the Courts, impressing upon them the necessity of
properly verifying the antecedents and criminal history of the accused
before furnishing any status report or affidavit before the Court, so that
such instances of incorrect disclosure of material facts do not happen
again.
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 6
11. Coming to the merits of the present case, case of the
prosecution is that total 150 tablets of Etizolam were recovered in the
present case. However, from the possession of the petitioner, 30 tablets of
Etizolam, weighing 2.7 grams, and 49 tablets of Tramadol were allegedly
recovered.
12. Petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence involving
commercial quantity of Etizolam, solely on the basis that weight of the
salt of Etizolam allegedly recovered from him is stated to be 2.7 grams,
which exceeds the prescribed threshold of 2.5 grams by merely 0.2
grams.
13. Be that as it may, petitioner is inside jail since 26.02.2025.
Out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so
far. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. In
these circumstances, keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite
period, particularly when the trial has made such limited progress, would
serve no useful purpose.
14. In view of the totality of circumstances, nature of the
allegations, period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner,
progress of the trial and, more particularly, the admitted factual position
regarding the incorrect information earlier furnished by the State with
respect to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court deems it
appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in
the present case.
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-41378-2026 7
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is
allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/
Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned,
if not required in any other case.
15. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
16. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
17. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly
found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to
be cancelled.
18. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
JAWALA RAM
2026.11.05 20:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document