Kuldeep Singh @ Kara @ Buna v. State of Punjab

Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

#1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.143 dated 7.7.2025 under Section 21-B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda.

#2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 30 grams of heroin from the petitioner.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2025. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a man aged about 74 years and is suffering from various age related ailments. Learned counsel has further urged that the trial CRM-M No.25808 of 2026 -2- proceedings would show that the petitioner is not causing any impediment in the early disposal of the trial. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is also required to lead defence evidence in order to prove his innocence. Learned counsel has further urged that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 30 grams heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature. Learned State counsel further submits that first bail petition of the petitioner was considered and rejected on merits on 11.12.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that though only 30 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner but the petitioner is involved in another FIR(s) as well. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

#5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

#6. The petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2025 and in continuous custody since then. More than 01 year has elapsed since the petitioner was arrested. No doubt the trial is progressing but keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner (30 grams of heroin), the pace of trial and nothing tangible CRM-M No.25808 of 2026 -3- having been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is delaying the trial, this Court is inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year and 01 day. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on merits on 11.12.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. About 7 months has elapsed since then but the trial has not CRM-M No.25808 of 2026 -4- concluded. Keeping in view the pace of trial and the extended incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. principles emerge: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following second/successive regular bail petition(s) regular bail petition(s) I. Second/successive maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds CRM-M No.25808 of 2026 -5- to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

#8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, CRM-M No.25808 of 2026 -6- State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

10.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No