1 1 CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 234 (1st case) IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF v. CRM-M-37210-2025
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 234 (1st case) IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Paramjit Singh t Singh @ Happy Punjab State of Punjab versus CRM-M-37210-2025 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 31, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate ocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Pun G Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nag a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (fo 439 (for short ‘BNSS’) (Section 439 of the Code o ode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( nt of 973 (for short ‘IPC’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing
Facts
, aring FIR No.55 dated 29.04.2025, registered for d for the offences punishable under S of nder Sections 21-B, 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic D otic Drugs and Psychotropic Substanc DPS bstances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Pol t Police Station Sultanwind, Distr rate, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in ques an n question is that the petitioner is an accused of bei of being involved in an FIR pertainin 05 ertaining to NDPS Act involving 05 grams of heroi f heroin, allegedly recovered from him him. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 2 CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 3.
Legal Reasoning
M & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. S d on v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and 21, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial e imposed by the concerned trial MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall re wing hall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi h the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in the give his cellphone number to the r/SHO of concerned Police Station ation prior his cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. y the not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submi every month, an affidavi Court, to the effect that commission of any offence In case the petitioner is offence after his being en FIR, on the basis of his affi mandated to move, forthwi which plea, but of course merits thereof. y of submit, on the first working day of fidavit, before the concerned trial trial that he has not been involved in d in bail. offence after being released on bail. er is found to be involved in any any ing enlarged on bail in the present esent ate is his affidavit or otherwise, the State is orthwith, for cancellation of his bail bail upon course, shall be ratiocinated upon 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 5 CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 31, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner titioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody ustody since 09.05.2025. Learned c the rned counsel has iterated that the recovery from from the petitioner is 05 grams heroi ial in heroin, which is non-commercial in nature, and th and thus, rigors of Section 37 of the pply. of the NDPS Act would not apply. Learned coun counsel has further iterated that th lsely that the petitioner has been falsely implicated int ed into the FIR in question. He the . He has further argued that the mandatory pro ry provisions of the NDPS Act have , and t have not been complied with, and thus, the prose prosecution case suffers from inheren ail is nherent defects. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel unsel seeks to place on record custod 2025 custody certificate dated 31.07.2025 in Court, whic , which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on n of on 09.05.2025. The completion of investigation ation and the trial emanating therefro will herefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time. At t e. At this juncture, it is not in dispute from ispute that the recovery alleged from the petitioner i ioner is only 05 grams of heroin, whic ture. , which is non-commercial in nature. The rival con al contentions raised at Bar give rise ll be ve rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated up ted upon during the course of trial. m it trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to iate to delve deep into these rival co est it val contentions, at this stage, lest it MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-37210- -2025 (O&M) 3 3 may prejudice ejudice the trial. Nothing tangible h d to ible has been brought forward to indicate the li the likelihood of the petitioner abs ss of er absconding from the process of justice or inter r interfering with the prosecution evid n evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 31 State 31.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the pet the petitioner has already suffered incarce than incarceration for a period of more than 02 months. Fur Further, as per the said custody certifi to be certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 02 02 cases pertaining to BNS & NDPS A rrants DPS Act, in which production warrants have been issu ued against him. However, this factu icient is factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to dec , to decline the concession of regular ba IR in ular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when when a case is made out for grant of reg of regular bail qua the FIR in question stion by ratiocinating inating upon the facts/circumstances of the egard s of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed up aced upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Su hd. ’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi hadi v. State of U.P. and another, 20 ; a er, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutt har Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 19 te, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & jud