[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramneet Singh Alias Billa vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2026
CRM-M-34372-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
113 CRM-M-34372-2025 (O & M)
Date of decision: 17.03.2026
Ramneet Singh @ Billa ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.140 dated 26.11.2023, registered under Sections 21, 22(b) of the
NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City, Nakodar, District Jalandhar
(Rural).
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 2 years and 24 days. The alleged recovery from the petitioner
is marginally above the non-commercial quantity of contraband, it being
24.18 grams of Buprenorphine. The interim bail granted as FSL had not
been received which he did not misuse and surrendered. Charges have
been framed on 07.05.2024 and only 5 PWs, out of 10, have been
examined. He is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act,
involving the non-commercial quantity of contraband, wherein he is on
bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme
CRM-M-34372-2025
Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 16.03.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 2 years and 24 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner
who was arrested at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the
submissions with regard to stage, petitioner being on bail in another case
under the NDPS Act and never misused the concession of bail.
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 had granted the concession of bail 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
of 1.5 grams of charas, marginally above non-commercial quantity,
against which the SLP filed by UOI was dismissed on 23.01.2023, in
CRM-M-34372-2025
Basanti Mondal and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12586/2022 on 29.03.2023, to the lady after 1 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 last 2 years, 24 days; on bail
in another case; never misused the concession of bail earlier granted;
charges were framed on 07.05.2024, but out of 10 PWs, only 5, have been
examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, and further
incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 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
CRM-M-34372-2025
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him 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 her 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.
17.03.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
ashok JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
