Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2025
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.244 dated
22.10.2023, registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana,
under Section 21 NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 2 years and 13 days. He alleges false implication. There is
non-compliance
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52(1) of NDPS Act.
No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery. The alleged
recovery effected from the dash-board
dash board of a car, of which he was a co-
passenger, is marginally above the commercial quantity, it being 260
grams of heroin. He is not owner of the vehicle. It is debatable as to
PARVEEN KUMAR
2025.11.06 19:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
whether he can be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband.
Co-accused, Ashu, driver of the vehicle has since passed away. Charges
stand framed on 21.08.2024, however, 3 out of 16 PWs have been
examined so far. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case under the
NDPS Act, wherein he was implicated on the disclosure statement of co-
accused and is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 06.11.2025, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 2 years and 13 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner,
who was apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the
submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being on
bail in other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "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."
7. This Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-
M-45214-2021, on 23.03.2022, where recovery of 255 grams of heroin,
custody was a little over 1 year and there being no criminal antecedents,
granted the concession of bail and in Sarabjeet Singh @ Sarbi vs. State
of Punjab, CRM-M-718-2023, on 24.03.2023, Gursant Singh @ Santu
vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-37944-2020, on 07.09.2021, wherein the
recovery, effected was from a transparent polythene bag, custody being 1
year 8 days and 1 year 3 months respectively, and in Karandeep Singh
@ Sunny vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-9712-2021, on 06.09.2021, a
case of recovery of 270 and 150 grams of heroin from two accused,
being marginally higher than non-commercial quantity after about 11
months. Similarly in Simrapal Singh vs. UOI, CRM-M-10276-2021, on
17.09.2021, the custody being of about 1 year and the recovery 1.5 grams
of charas, marginally above non-commercial quantity, against which the
SLP filed by UOI was dismissed on 23.01.2023, in Basanti Mondal and
Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12586/2022
on 29.03.2023, to the lady after i1 year of custody, recovery being of
6548 bottles, each contained 100 ml of phensedyl cough linctus codeine
and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on
06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been
recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years and 13 days;
on bail in other case; charges were framed on 21.08.2024, but out of 16
PWs, 3 have been examined as yet, the trial is likely to take a considerable
time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a
speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.
9. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail,
subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and
shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial
Court and not change the same till conclusion of
trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change
either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with
prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose
any other condition, as deemed appropriate
while releasing the petitioner.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and
would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the
trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
