Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh Alias Vicky Alias World vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
CRM-M--10207-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
249 CRM-M-10207-2025
Date of decision: 27.03.202
.2025
Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky @ World
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.S. Ladher, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition is the third petition under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR
No.175 dated 27.09.2019,, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act
(offence under Sections 25 of NDPS Act and Sections 42
420,
0, 465, 468, 471
and 120-B
B of IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1920 added later on) at
Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
fol
"SHO Police Station Sadar Kapurthala "Jai Hind" today 1 SI along with
ASI Puran Chand No.397/Kapurthala ASI Tarsem Singh
No.868/Kapurthala HC Mangat Ram No.880 HC Lakhvir Singh
No.305/КРТ СТ Kuldeep Singh 886 were on patrolling duty in search of
anti-social
social elements on private vehicle along with laptop printer and were
going from Police Station Sadar Kapurthala to village Saidowal, Bhandal
Dauna, Sidhwa Dauna etc. and when Police party while patrolling
reached at a little distance ahead of village Sa
Saidowal
idowal then the secret
informer signalled me SI to stop my vehicle and after getting my vehicle
stopped took me to one side and gave the information that Vikramjeet
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
Singh alias Vicky alias World son of Balwinder Singh alias Billa resident
of Mohalla Guru Ka
a Khuh Maharaja Ranjit Singh School Wali Gali near
Dhoda Chowki Tarn Taran Police Station City Tarn Taran and Gurpreet
Singh son of Harjit Singh resident of House No.361 Aman Nagar Mohalla
Near Chuhad Wal Chungi Police Station City Kapurthala District
Kapurthala
rthala and that Vikramjeet Singh alias Vicky alias World is the
smuggler of selling intoxicants and against him already many cases stands
registered for committing heinous crimes and for keeping intoxicant
substances and illegal arms and today also both of the aforesaid young
person on 1 20 car bearing No.PB02D
No.PB02D-V-6641
6641 white in colour are coming
from Kulara side towards Kapurthala and in case at this time after setting
up the naka at London Palace Bhandal Dauna Road and the checking of
the vehicles got conducted
cted then both these young person can be got
apprehended with intoxicant substance and illegal weapons. Since the said
information is truthful and reliable as such the offences under Section 21,
22, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act is made out, thus,
after writing the Ruqa the same is being sent to the Police Station for
registration of case against the aforesaid person by hand Constable
Kuldeep Singh No.886. After registering the case the FIR number be
informed. Control room be informed. A
After
fter issuing the special reports the
senior officials be informed. I SI along with other officials is going to the
spot for setting up the naka at London Palace Bhandal Dauna Road. Sd./-
Sd./
Avtar Singh SI Police Station Sadar Kapurthala dated 27.09.2019 today
within the jurisdiction of village Saidowal 5:50 PM."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has
further submitted that no recovery, as alleged in the prosecution case, was
effected from the petitioner and the same is in fact been planted upon him.
Learned counsel has further submitted
submitted that the mandatory provisions of
NDPS Act, 1985 have not been complied with. It has been further urged that
Rule 66 of NDPS Act permits a person to carry Buprenorphine
ne Injections
and thus no offence under the NDPS Act is made out against the peti
petitioner.
tioner.
Learned counsel has further argued that no proper independent witness was
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
ever enjoined in the case and no plausible explanation has been rendered for
non-joining
joining of such independent witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further referred,
referred in extenso, to the zimni/interim orders passed by the
trial Court on 04.07.2024,
04.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 20.08.20
20.08.2024,
24, 10.09.2024, 30.09.2024,
16.10.2024, 19.12.2024 and 13.01.2025 to argue that there is inordinate
delay in culmination of the trial and the same is not attributable to the
petitioner. It has been further urged that vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed
in CRM-M
M-34958-2024,
2024, this Court (while dealing with the bail petition on
behalf of the co-accused
co accused namely Gurmeet Singh Badwal) had directed the
trial Court to expedite the trial but to no avail. In this view of the matter,
learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing
that the allegations raised are serious in nature and the petition
petitioner
er does not
deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has
further submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 100 ml of
contraband namely Buprenorphine alongwith a pistol (without make) and
five live cartridges of 7.65
7.65 KF. It has thus been urged that the recovery of
the contraband pertains to commercial quantity and, therefore, the bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is attracted. Learned State counsel has
filed custody certificate 26.03.2025 in Court today and relied upon the
involvement of the petitioner in multiple other cases. He has, accordingly
sought for dismissal of the petition in hand.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
6. The petitioner
oner was arrested on 27.09.2019 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 20.03.2020.
20.03.2020
Charges in the case were framed on 07.07.2022. Total 25 prosecution
witnesses have been cited,
cited, out of which only 13 have been examined till
t
date. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether
the contraband and firearm/cartridges in question have been planted upon the
petitioner, whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act,
ct, 1985 have
been complied with & as to whether the petitioner was permitted to carry
Buprenorphine are issues of contentious nature which are essentially
Buprenorphine;
required to be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does
not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival content
contentions,
ions, at this
stage, lest it may prejudice the trial.
trial Nothing tangible has been brought
forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the
process of justice or interfering with the remaining prosecution evidence.
At this juncture, it would be germane to refer herein to a
judgment passed by this Court titled as Kulwinder vs. State of Punjab =
Neutral Citation No.: = 2025:PHHC:002695; relevant whereof reads as
under:
"7. There is another aspect nay vital aspect of the matter in
hand which craves for attention of this Court.
7.1. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State
of Bihar reported as (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges
is "implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by
this Court". Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one
which contains a procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was held
that:
"Now obviously procedure prescribed
cribed by law for depriving a person of
liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure
which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as
"reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean
reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question
which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a
person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be
deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial
tr
in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21."
7.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Abdul
Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak reported as (1992) 1 SCC 225 has re-
re
emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused,
accus
facing prolonged trial, has no option:
"The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the
State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with
reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, wh
where
ere the large
majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society,
not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal
advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in
a given case, iff any accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given
one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an
accused from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on
the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. "
7.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR
(Ciminal) 494 has held as under:
"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in
everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with
delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every
sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variet
varietyy of factors is
responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may
be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental
neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the
manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with
indigence or other privations.
189. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrine
enshrinedd under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not
oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching
arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed
aside lightly, howsoever stringent the ppenal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article
21 of the Constitution."
7.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court; while dealing with a bail plea
in respect of a case under NDPS Act pertaining to commercial quantity
contraband; in a judgment titled as Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311, has obse
observed as under:
"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. According to the Union Home
Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau
had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 pr
prisoners
isoners were
lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,068 lakhs in the country. Of
these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.
22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of
"prisonisation' a term described
ed by the Kerala High Court in A Convict
Prisoner vs. State reported in 1993 Cri LJ 3242, as a "a radical
transformation" whereby the prisoner:
"loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal
possessions. He has no personal relationship
relationships.
s. Psychological problems
result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of
personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self
Self-perception
perception
changes."
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as
crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more
honour is paid to the criminal" (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
Community' published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleterious
effect - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata:
immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as
well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials -
especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are
taken up and concluded speedily."
7.5. The Hon'ble
n'ble Supreme Court; in a bail plea under NDPS
Act pertaining to commercial quantity; in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020
dated 07.02.2020 titled as "Chitta
Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of
West Bengal" has held as under:--
"Leave granted.
ises out of the final Order dated 30.7.2010 passed by
This appeal arises
the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787 of 2019.
The instant matter arises out of application preferred by the
appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with
Criminal Case No.146
46 of 2018 registered with Taherpur Police Station for
offence punishable under Section 21
21-C
C of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in
possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of phensydryl cough syrup
containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.
The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be in
custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in
support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been
examined in the trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the
rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record,
in our view, case for bail is made out."
7.6. Thee Hon'ble Supreme Court; in a bail plea under NDPS
Act pertaining to commercial quantity; titled as "
"Nitish
Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal" has held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause
notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing
Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served
on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their
behalf.
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I
F.I.R.
dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the
petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year aand
nd 07 months as
on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has
been examined. The petitioner does not have criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the
petitioner and all the attending
nding circumstances but without expressing any
views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail
subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of tthe
he Trial Court."
7.7. To the similar effect is the ratio decidendi of the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-
No.5530
2022 dated 22.08.20223 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs.
The State of Gujarat"; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated
05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of
India and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024(4) RCR
(Criminal) 172
7.8. The right
ht to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a
vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate
anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any
impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himsel
himself,
f, but there is an
overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has
been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the
above-referred
referred to Supreme Court's judgments have laid down a series of
decisions opening
ng up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of
speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins wi
with
th the actual restraint
imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible
prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since
the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings
consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early
hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence.
The overcrowded Court-dockets,
dockets, the heavy volume of work and the
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the
entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain.
However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping tthe
he sword of Damocles
hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve
any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of
affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression
and prevent
ent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an
obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The
guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused
against oppressive pre-trial
trial imprisonment; secondly, it rrelieves
elieves the
accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal
charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or
memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the
accused to defend himself.
imself. It goes without saying that the consequences of
pre-trial
trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven
otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-
jail
life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally impor
important,
tant, the burden of
detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent
members of his family.
There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves
consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to
accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of
contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition
in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the
rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates
that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public
prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged/alleged
eged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused's
fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and ppersonal
ersonal liberty
cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial
process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the
accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An
individual cannot be kept behind
ehind bars for an inordinate period of time by
taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely
disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constituti
constitution
on of
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
special Courts under Section 36-A
A of the Act. However, this Court cannot
turn Nelson's eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that
frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty
duty-bound
bound to ensure
that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual's
fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute.
While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious
balancee between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the
sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged
incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre
pre-trial
trial
detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the
principle of justice and equity.
Ergo,, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to
conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it
militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty
granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the
statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought
to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail
in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay
in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
1985."
Reverting to the case in hand; aas per custody certificate dated
26.03.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered
incarceration for a period of more than 05 years, 04 months and 19 days. A
perusal of the zimni orders dated 04.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 20.08.2
20.08.2024,
024,
10.09.2024, 30.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 19.12.2024 and 13.01.2025 indicates
that the
he trial is procrastinating, conclusion thereof is not visible in near
future and the delay in culmination thereof cannot be attributed to the
petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the said zimni orders would indicate that the
Police has shown a complete lackluster
lackluster attitude in cooperating with the early
culmination of the trial.
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
The first petition for grant of regular bail preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed on 09.03.2022 followed by the dismissal of a
subsequent bail petition on 05.07.2024
05.07.2024. In lightt of the prolonged
incarceration of the petitioner, this Court had, on 05.07.2024, had directed
the trial Court to expedite the proceedings for an expeditious conclusion.
Evidently, the petitioner has endured an extended period of custody since the
dismissal
sal of both the bail petitions. Moreover, despite the direction of this
Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, there appears to be little tangible
progress towards the same. The protracted nature of the proceedings not
only frustrates the mandate of a fair and speedy trial but also raises concerns
about the efficacy of judicial
judicial directives in ensuring timely justice.
Indubitably, there is extended custody of the petitioner since the dismissal of
the first as well as second bail petition.
The long inordinate
te custody of the petitioner as an undertrial,
undertr
without him being responsible for procrastination
procrastination of the trial, entitles him to
grant of the regular bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as aan
n undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in
addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty
Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis
mis-use
use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral
or documentary, during the trial.
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042533
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to
the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police
Station and shall not change his cell
cell-phone
phone number
without prior permi
permission
ssion of the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay
the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove
nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits
mer of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
March 27,
27 2025
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
12 of 12
