Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab CRM
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Amandeep Singh Versus State of Punjab CRM-M-42153-2025 Decided on : 11.11.2025 ...... Petitioner ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State *** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case
Facts
FIR No.131, dated 18.09.2023, registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala. 2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 18.09.2023, SI Labh Singh along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner and co-accused Swaran Singh @ Chapad, Kashmir Singh, Atul and Rahul who were found in conscious possession of 06 kg heroin and Rs.7,00,000/- drug money. 3.
Legal Reasoning
guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.11.13 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5) public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable . Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling." 9. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/another case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:21) (cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:25)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:25)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:28) (cid:29)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7) (cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:22) (cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7) (cid:4) (cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:7) (cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:22) (cid:4) (cid:30)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:25)(cid:13) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:7) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:22) (cid:4) (cid:25)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:25)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:7)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:25)(cid:13) (cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:11) (cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:24) (cid:4) (cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:16) (cid:4) (cid:23)(cid:30)(cid:23)(cid:11) (cid:4) (cid:24)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:20) (cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7) (cid:27)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:1) 10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. 11. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:12)RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL(cid:1)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:6) (cid:13) (cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:15) (cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:10) MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.11.13 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. Learned counsel MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.11.13 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2) submits that the collective recovery in the case is 06 kg heroin, however, the recovery from the petitioner is only 01 kg heroin. He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner as well as co- accused and nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. Learned counsel submits that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as the custody certificate of the petitioner, which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he was apprehended at the spot with the recovery of alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in one other case meaning thereby he is an habitual offender. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years 01 month and 14 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges have also been framed, out of 15 proseuction witnesses, only one witness has been examined and the trial is proceeding at snail’s pace. The fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.11.13 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:3) in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”. 7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incarceration on the ground of delay in trial in an NDPS matter involving commercial quantity of contraband. Similar relief has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, namely: Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 736/2024; Debrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14970/2023; Santarul Islam @ Santa v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.13169/2023; Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8512/2023; Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14172/2023; Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15284/2023; Mithun Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.16598/2023; Sk. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin Sk. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.3402/2024; Indadul Shah v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12670/2023; Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh v. Union of India; Ripon Seikh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.16663/2023; Moidul Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) MAMTA MALHOTRA 2025.11.13 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:4) No.15668/2023; Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.2354/2024; Saddam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15496/2023; Bijon Sk. @ Golam Murselim v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.6046/2024; and Subhas v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8823/2019. 8. Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648, while dealing with an NDPS case, held that the principles of fairness embodied under Article 21 override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the Court observed: "20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be