[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2026
CRM-M-2825-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206
CRM-M-2825-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2026
Anil
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Rahul Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38 dated 07.07.2023,
registered under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act at Police Station Bajakhana,
District Faridkot.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for 2 years and more than 6 months. The alleged recovery of 400 grams of
Heroin was effected from the arm rest of the driver and co-passenger seat, thus
it is thus debatable that he is in conscious possession thereof. No independent
witness was joined at the time of recovery. Charges have been framed on
21.03.2024, however, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been
examined. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case in Hanumangarh, wherein
he 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 filed by the learned State counsel is taken
1 of 4
on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars 2 years, 6 months and
10 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 and the petitioner being on bail in another 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. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The
State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022,
granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there
being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division
Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022)
2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to
speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors
of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-
57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had
2 of 4
undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months 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,
allowed bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 6 months and 10 days; on
bail in another case; charges were framed 21.03.2024, however, there are still
1U+0033 more prosecution witnesses remaining, 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.
10. 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.
3 of 4
(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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
23.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
