[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karaj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M-15931-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M-15931-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.04.2026
Karaj Singh
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate,
Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate and
Mr. Kush Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.(Oral)
This petition is the third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita', 2023. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.92 dated 06.06.2023,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 25,27-A and 29
of , Police Station Lopoke,
District Amritsar, Punjab.
2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI
Balraj Singh' who had reported that on 06.06.2023, when he was leading a
team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of
suspicious conduct a person who was travelling in a Fortuner car was
CRM-M-15931-2026 (O&M)
intercepted and on checking he was found in possession of 257 grams of
Heroin and Rs.3,45,000/- drug money.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is already in custody for a period of two years and more than
ten months, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is not likely to be
concluded in near future, as the co-accused is supposed to lead some defence
evidence. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of above, the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.
7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the
present case there is no delay in trial as the entire prosecution evidence has
already been recorded by the learned trial Court and the case is fixed for
defence evidence. The learned State Counsel has also contended that
otherwise also the conclusion of trial is not likely to take a long time and
rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case, because
CRM-M-15931-2026 (O&M)
the recovered contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity.
The learned State Counsel has further contended that this is the third petition
for bail and from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, no significant
change in material circumstances has taken place.
8. The record has been perused carefully.
9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a
decision:-
i) that the recovered contraband comes within the ambit of
commercial quantity, and the rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act do not stand complied with in this case;
ii) that there is no delay in trial as the entire prosecution
evidence has already been recorded, and the case is fixed
for defence evidence;
iii) that the trial is likely to be concluded in near future; and
iv) that from the date of dismissal of second bail petition,
there is no significant change in circumstance which may
make the petitioner eligible for filing the third petition for
bail.
10. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts of all the
abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the present petition is
devoid of merit and deserved dismissal. Hence, the present petition is hereby
dismissed. However, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the
CRM-M-15931-2026 (O&M)
learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and pass the final verdict
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
22.04.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
