Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Present:- Mr. Sukhcharan S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.117 dated

08.06.2019, registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

#2. As per the allegations, on 08.06.2019, on the basis of a secret information, while travelling in a Swift car bearing registration No. CH-04-F- 2794, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 10 kilograms of poppy husk was effected from his conscious possession. He was formally arrested. The petitioner was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 16.07.2019. However, during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and CRM-M-35811-2026 (O&M) -2- he was declared a proclaimed offender on 06.05.2024 and was arrested on

23.01.2026. His subsequent application for regular bail has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 26.02.2026 primarily on the ground that he had been declared a proclaimed offender. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was previously granted regular bail in the year 2019 and there was no allegation of misuse of the concession of bail till his absence before the trial Court. The petitioner could not appear before the trial Court because of unavoidable family circumstances arising out of the serious accident suffered by his daughter and, therefore, his absence was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further argued that the petitioner has already undergone the consequences of his non-appearance by remaining in custody since his arrest on 23.01.2026 and the sole reason for rejection of bail by the trial Court was his declaration as a proclaimed offender. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been arrested and produced before the Court, the order declaring him a proclaimed offender loses its efficacy and cannot be treated as an absolute bar to the grant of bail. The quantity of the alleged contraband was of non- commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Investigation stands concluded, challan has already been presented and no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#5. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has filed custody certificate. It is argued by CRM-M-35811-2026 (O&M) -3- learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents and his past conduct, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

#7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. The petitioner was admittedly granted regular bail after his arrest in the year 2019. It is also not disputed that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is 10 kilograms of poppy husk, which admittedly falls within the category of non-commercial quantity. Consequently, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The primary reason which weighed with the learned trial Court while declining bail is that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender after he failed to appear during trial. However, it is equally a matter of record that the petitioner now stands arrested and is in judicial custody. Therefore, the consequences of his earlier non-appearance have already followed and the said circumstance cannot justify his continued incarceration indefinitely, particularly when the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented and no further recovery is to be effected from him. Pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot be considered to be a reason for denying him bail in the given circumstances. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- CRM-M-35811-2026 (O&M) -4- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO. (v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) he shall appear before the IO/SHO on the first Monday of every alternate month.

#7. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

#8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

10.07.2026 Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No