Bikramjit Singh Alias Vicky Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Bikramjit Singh Alias Vicky Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted during pendency of trial; petitioner ordered to be released subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, if not required in any other case, and directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner, during pendency of trial, in FIR No. 110 dated 25.07.2024 (Sections 21, 21-C, 29 of NDPS Act, PS STF, SAS Nagar (Mohali)), where the heroin recovery was effected from co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda and the petitioner's alleged conscious possession of the contraband remained to be adjudicated.

Court's answer

This Court found substance in the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, observing that the recovery of 260 grams of heroin was effected from the possession of co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda, not the petitioner, and that only charges have been framed with the process of recording evidence yet to start.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the petitioner had conscious possession of the contraband is a moot question, to be determined only if the prosecution produces evidence connecting him with the recovery effected from co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda.

Key takeaways

In view of the totality of circumstances, the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner and the factors noticed, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant the concession of bail.ratio¶27
The observations made in the judgment shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case; the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — Regular bail granted during pendency of trial (S. 483 BNSS 2023, earlier S. 439 CrPC) to petitioner booked in FIR No. 110 dated 25.07.2024 (Ss. 21, 21-C, 29 NDPS Act, PS STF, SAS Nagar (Mohali)). Counsel contended 267 g heroin was recovered from co-accused Ranjit Singh, 17 g above the 250 g non-commercial quantity, and nothing from the petitioner; the Court observed recovery of 260 g heroin from co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda, charges framed but evidence recording not yet begun, and held petitioner's conscious possession to be a moot question answerable only on future prosecution evidence. Petitioner in custody since 25.07.2024, already on bail in all other cases (habitual-offender objection conceded by State). Petition allowed; release on furnishing sureties, conditioned on non-interference with witnesses; observations expressly not to be read as an opinion on the facts.

217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-5068-2025

Date of Decision: 03.02.2025

BIKRAMJIT SINGH ALIAS VICKY

….Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ….Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner(s)	No.			Station
Bikramjit	110	25.07.2024	21, 21-C,	STF	SAS
Singh Alias			29 of		Nagar
Vicky			NDPS		(Mohali)

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that nothing has

been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

2.1 That recovery of 267 grams of heroin has been effected from

the possession of co-accused Ranjit Singh, which is 17 grams more than the non-commercial quantity i.e. 250 grams.

SANGEETA 2025.02.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-5068-2025 2

2.2 That the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability, having in his possession 267 grams of heroin rather, same would be the question before the trial Court requiring adjudication whether there is any contraband in the possession of the petitioner or not.

2.3 That the petitioner is stated to be inside jail since 25.07.2024 and in all other cases registered against him, he is already on bail.

On advance notice, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an habitual offender, as he is accused in five other cases also and four of those are under NDPS Act. However, he is not in a position to dispute that in all those cases, petitioner is already on bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by observing that since the recovery has been effected of 260 grams of heroin and that too from the possession of the co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda, and the Court has been informed that only charges have been framed and process of recording evidence is yet to start.

Moreover, whether the petitioner had conscious possession of the contraband or not, is a moot question which would be determined, only if the prosecution produces any evidence in that regard by connecting it with the recovery which has been effected from co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Tidda.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem SANGEETA 2025.02.04 18:33 it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-5068-2025 3

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

9. Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

February 03, 2025 sangeeta

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES /NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

SANGEETA 2025.02.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document