[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akashdeep Singh @ Akash @ Baba vs State Of Punjab on 3 December, 2025
CRM-M-1839-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237 CRM-M-1839-2025
Decided on : 03.12.2025
Akashdeep Singh @ Akash@ Baba ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
***
Present : Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
***
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.407 dated 19.10.2023, registered
under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on
19.10.2023, ASI Amarjit Singh along with his fellow police officials was on
patrolling duty and on suspicion, they apprehended co-accused Manjit Khan @
Mani who was found in conscious possession of 265 grams of intoxicant
powder. Initially, the FIR was registered against the said co-accused.
3. 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
1 of 7
offence. He argued that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was
named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated
as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused
Manjit Khan alias Mani. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other
evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite
law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is
not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner
is in custody since 09.11.2023. The investigation in the case is complete,
challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 12 prosecution
witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date. He further submits that trial
will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner and the status report, 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. He has submitted that the recovery of alleged
contraband effected from the co-accused in the present case falls under the
commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also
involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is an habitual offender.
5. A query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to
whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during
investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which
he answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the offence.
6. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
2 of 7
regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is
concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2020 Supreme Court 5592', relevant whereof reads as under:
"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who
are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are
"police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence
Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them
would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence
Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an
accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under
section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional
statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".
7. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of
Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290', has reiterated the ratio
decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh
(supra).
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of
anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as 'Vijay
Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under:
"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under
Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His
application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court.
The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda
Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner
concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-
3 of 7
accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the
petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations
of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against
the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was
granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner
is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such
terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is
allowed. All pending applications are disposed of."
9. The petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material
available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity
of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to
comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and same cannot be a
ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
10. 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 01 year 07 months and 12 days; out of 12 prosecution witnesses, only
06 have been examined, as such, the trial may take a long time to conclude and
no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody.
Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being
concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
11. 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 his right to
4 of 7
life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is
against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
12. 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.)
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.
13. Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any
5 of 7
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
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
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."
14. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is
involved in other/one more criminal 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
6 of 7
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:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In
other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction
of the Court etc."
15. 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. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
03.12.2025 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL )
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
