CRM-M v. State of Pun

Judgment

1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 041 dated 15.06.202 .2025, registered a tered against him for commission of o n of offences under Sections 22, 27, 2 , 27, 29 of NDPS A DPS Act and Section 111 of BNS BNS, at Police Station Payal, Distri District Ludhiana, h , has filed the present petition und on under Section 483 of BNSS for gra or grant of bail.

2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- At 11.45 AM on 15.6.2025 ba 5 based on a chance recovery, Polic Police team head eaded by ASI Hardam Singh, sei , seized 5 strips of 10 tablets eac (totaling 50 g 50 tablets) of intoxicant (bearing ring brand name LOZEX MD 2, wi , with salt Loraz orazepam bearing batch number ber ABPL-24046 and expiry da 02/2027) fr ) from a transparent packet thrown rown by one Saurabh Chauhan, son son of Jagdish S h Singh, resident of Ward No. No.1, Payal. The other perso accompany panying Saurabh Chauhan introduc gh @ duced himself as Amandeep Singh @ GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -49361-2025 2- -2 Toni. None one could, however, produce any li ny license or permit etc. As per statu status report, stat tatutory formalities were complete pleted at the site. A formal case vid e vide

FIR No. 04 041 dated 15.06.2025, was registe gistered against them for commissio ission of offences nces under Sections 22, 27, 29 of ND of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BN f BNS, at Police lice Station Payal, District Lud Ludhiana. During the course se of interrogati gation, both Amandeep Singh and and Saurabh Chauhan disclosed th d that these intox ntoxicant tablets had to be sold to d to their customers, as also that h hat he used to pur purchase the contraband from one one Iqbal Singh @ Balli who was als s also nominated ated as accused and was arrested on d on 16.6.2025. From his possessio ssion, three strips trips of intoxicating tablets each c ch containing 10 tablets, totaling 3 ing 30 tablets (be (bearing brand name LOZEX MD MD 2, with salt Lorazepam bearin earing batch No. A o. ABPL-24046 and expiry date 02/ e 02/2027) were recovered. As per the FSL report appen appended with status report, the tot he total weight of t ht of the contraband recovered from t from the polythene thrown by Saurab Chauhan w han was 6.68 grams of Lorazepam wh am which is a ‘small’ quantity. Petitioner moved an applicatio lication for grant of bail before learne learned Judge, Spe Special Court, Ludhiana, who in ho in terms of order dated 25.7.202 .2025, dismissed t issed the said application. Aggrieved rieved of which, the present petition ha tion has filed. been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner submits that petitioner ha ner has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case. t case. Statutory requirements of NDP f NDPS Act were n were not complied with in letter and er and spirit by the Police team. It . It is further the er the submission of learned counsel t nsel that petitioner has been in custod custody since 15.6.

15.6.2025. The contraband alleged llegedly recovered from the polythen lythene bag thrown thrown by Saurabh Chauhan weighs a eighs about 6.68 grams of Lozex MD x MD2 with salt Lo salt Lorazepam, which is a ‘small’ qua quantity. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -49361-2025 3- -3 Continuing further, learned co ned counsel submits that likelihood o hood of completion letion of trial in the near future is qu e is quite remote. Thus, his (P) furth ) further incarceratio ceration would not serve any useful pu purpose as the same would not on be violativ iolative of his rights under Article rticle 21 of the Constitution of Indi India, including right to speedy trial but would would also be against the principle ciple of “Bail is a general rule and incarceratio ration is an exception.” Prayer allowing th the petition has been made.

4. Per contra, learned State State counsel while opposing submission issions raised by learned counsel unsel for the petitioner, submits th petitioner ioner is a habitual offender. He is is involved in another case of lik nature and and in case the concession of bail bail is granted to him, there is ever likelihood ihood of him fleeing from the process rocess of justice by not appearing in Court and and committing same offence yet ag again cannot be ruled out. Learne Learned State Coun Counsel further contends that drug m rug menace in the State of Punjab is o ab is on the rise and ise and, therefore, needs to be dealt wi ealt with sternly. Prayer for dismissal o issal of petition has ion has been made.

5. Heard learned counsel for for the parties and perused documents ments on record.

6. Factual aspects of the case lea leading to the registration of the FI FIR have alread already been noticed in para 2 of the the order. In view of the submission issions advanced by learned counsel for the pet petitioner, but without commentin menting further on on the merits of the case, the fact that petitioner has been in custod custody since 15.0 .06.2025, investigations qua him a him are complete, for challan ha llan has already bee dy been filed, for even the charges h rges have not yet been framed, lenie lenient view is tak is taken in favour of petitioner. Thus . Thus, when appreciated in the light o light of the facts tha acts that have been brought on record, ecord, the Court is of the opinion that n that no GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -49361-2025 4- -4 useful purp l purpose would be served by furthe further detention of petitioner, as th , as the same, witho , without the prospect of trial being co ing concluded in the near future, wou , would not only be nly be violative of his rights under nder Article 21 of the Constitution o ution of India, inclu , including right to speedy trial but w but would also be against the princip rinciple of “Bail is il is a general rule and incarcera ceration is an exception” as held b held by Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court in Dataram v. Sta . State of Uttar Pradesh and anothe other, 2018(2) RC ) RCR (Criminal) 131.

7. Resultantly, petitioner is grant s granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furn is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t s to the satisfaction of learned tri ed trial Court/Duty t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The The petitioner shall abide by th by the following wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ e intimidate prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no l not leave the country without prio urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th ith the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall ll furnish his address and mobi number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -49361-2025 5- -5 shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any ot condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order.

9. In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2026

12.01.2026 NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document