Sandeep Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner being an employee, his young age (19/20 years), his lack of involvement in any other criminal case, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no comment on the petitioner's actual involvement in the commission of the crime as per the prosecution's case. The operative direction was that the petitioner would be enlarged on bail upon furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The issue of the employer's GST registration was noted but not determinative of the bail application itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Singh, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. The State of Punjab, through an affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tapa, District Barnala, stated that Sukhdev Singh, with whom the petitioner was employed, had not registered any PAN number under the GST Act, 2017. The State counsel, on instructions, did not deny the petitioner's employment with Sukhdev Singh but confirmed that 2600 tablets were recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be 19/20 years old and not involved in any other criminal case. The trial had not yet commenced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as an employee, is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving recovery of tablets, considering his age and lack of prior criminal record, and the fact that his employer has not registered under the GST Act, 2017? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for regular bail based on his age (19/20 years), being an employee, and not having any prior criminal involvement. The fact that his employer has not registered under the GST Act was also implicitly presented as a factor. The petitioner relied on the general provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking bail. Respondent (State of Punjab): Did not deny the petitioner's employment or his age. Acknowledged the recovery of 2600 tablets from the petitioner. The State's primary contention was the recovery of the tablets, but they did not oppose bail on the grounds of the employer's GST registration status or the petitioner's specific involvement in the alleged crime.