1 1 CRM-M-39497- -2025 238 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND v. Punjab State of Punjab CRM-M-39497-2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 D
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-39497- -2025 238 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Amandeep Sin ep Singh @ Aman versus Punjab State of Punjab CRM-M-39497-2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Adv Advocate 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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (f nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing
Legal Reasoning
, aring FIR No.16 dated 15.03.2025, registered for d for the offences punishable und the e under Sections 22/29/61 of the Narcotic Drug Drugs and Psychotropic Substances DPS tances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Police Station Aur, District S.B.S. Na .S. Nagar, Punjab. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in ques is an n question is that the petitioner is an accused of bei of being involved in an FIR pertainin 20 ertaining to NDPS Act involving 20 intoxicating ta ting tablets of Etizolam weighing abo tions ng about 1.82 gram and 6 injections having salt Bu alt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner titioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody ustody since 19.04.2025. Learned c t the rned counsel has iterated that the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- -2025 2 2 mandatory pr ry provisions of the NDPS Act been Act have not scrupulously been complied with d with by the prosecution, and thus, ffers thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent herent defects. Learned counsel fur rime further iterated that the prime prosecution ev tion evidence available against the pe sure the petitioner is that of a disclosure statement by t by co-accused, namely, Amanjit il is anjit Singh. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp n 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 s, 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 29.07.2025 in Court, whi t, which is taken on record. He t the He has further submitted that the petitioner is in r is involved in multiple other FIR r the FIR(s), including those under the NDPS Act, an ct, and thus, he ought not to be extend extended the benefit of regular bail. 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 after sted on 19.04.2025 whereinafter investigation w ation was carried out and challan was p Total was presented on 28.05.2025. Total 14 prosecution ecution witnesses have been cited, bu d till ed, but none has been examined till date. Indubita dubitably, the conclusion of trial w The trial will take its own time. The contraband all nd alleged to have been recovered - ered in the FIR in question, is non- commercial in cial in nature, and therefore, rigours o pply. ours of Section 37 would not apply. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- -2025 3 3 appropriate to iate to delve deep into these rival co est it val contentions, at this stage, lest it 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 2 d ated 29.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, unsel, the petitioner has already suffere d of suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months & is hs & is shown to be involved in multiple ultiple other cases/ FIR(s). 6.2. Further, as per the said custody er is ustody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be in be involved in multiple FIR(s). How be a However, this factum cannot be a ground suffici sufficient by itself, to decline the con o the he concession of regular bail to the petitioner in th r in the FIR in question when a case i gular case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FI the FIR in question by ratiocinating u es of ating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. R FIR. Reliance in this regard can be pl f the be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. A .P. hd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2 her, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 nt of 86; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble C ’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (2) e of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Crimina minal) 477 & judgments of this Cou 2022 is Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhil khilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , and yana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Cr (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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- -2025 4 4 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 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 give his cellphone number to the 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. submit, on the first working day of y of fidavit, before the concerned trial trial d in that he has not been involved in offence after being released on bail. bail. er is found to be involved in any any esent ing enlarged on bail in the present his affidavit or otherwise, the State is ate 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. Ordered accordingly. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 5 CRM-M-39497- -2025 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 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 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment