[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rinku vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-67989-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119 CRM-M-67989-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.03.2026
RINKU ... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Gurjinder Singh Thind, 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.63 dated 29.07.2023, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 and later on added Section 27 of the NDPS Act, at Police
Station Sanour, District Patiala.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for
2 years, 7 months, 16 days. The alleged recovery is 25 tablets of
Alprazolam from a polythene bag that allegedly thrown by the petitioner,
thus, it is debatable whether it is in his conscious possession. Co-accused
Karan Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
20.08.2025, Annexure P3. No independent witness has been joined at the
time of recovery. Challan has been presented on 26.04.2022, charges have
been framed on 19.02.2023 and 4 PWs, out of 14 PWs, remain to be
examined. He is involved in one more case under NDPS Act, wherein he
was convicted in the year 2016 and his sentence stands suspended.
Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court
CRM-M-67989-2025
titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,
2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 17.03.2026, filed by the learned
State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind
bars for 2 years, 7 months and 16 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
that the commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the
petitioner who was apprehended along with his co-accused at the spot.
However, he is unable to controvert the submission with regard to stage,
co-accused having been granted bail and sentence of the petitioner being
suspended 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. In Sarabjeet Singh @ Sarbi vs. State of Punjab, CRM-
M718-2023, decided on 24.03.2023, Gursant Singh @ Santu vs. State
of Punjab, CRM-M-37944-2020, decided on 07.09.2021, the recovery, as
in the present case, was effected from a transparent polythene bag wherein
the accused was granted bail. This Court granted bail in Tajinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-8212-2022, alleged recovery was of 270
grams of heroin and the accused was behind bars since 7 months and
CRM-M-67989-2025
Ladwinder Singh @ Laddi vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-44383-2022,
wherein the recovery was of 2kgs. 700 grams opium and the accused
remain in custody for 9 months.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years, 7 months and 16
days; co-accused is on bail; sentence stands suspended in another case;
challan was presented on 26.04.2022, charges were framed on 19.02.2023
and out of 14 PWs, 7 have been examined and 3 given up, 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
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.
CRM-M-67989-2025
(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.
18.03.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
ashok JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
