Kanav Khanna Vs State of Punjab

The Prayer in this petition under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.12 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections 22, 29, 61/85 of the NDPS Act 1985, registered at Police Station Majitha Road, Amritsar City, District Amritsar.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Kanav Khanna and his companions Lakshay Malhotra, Neeraj Mehra and Mujaffar (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRMM-60747-2024) were apprehended with 2000 intoxicant tablets containing the salt Tramadol.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied

¶18

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-6645-2025 #2#

¶20

with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since 05.11.2024 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023 .

¶21

On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 05.11.2024 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

¶24

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:-

¶25

“As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

¶26

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the

¶27

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-6645-2025 #3#

¶29

NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

¶30

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents .

¶31

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶33

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶35

In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

¶36

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

¶37

“1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act’) in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

¶38

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

¶39

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

¶40

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-6645-2025 #4#

¶42

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been

¶43

filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶44

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views

¶45

on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶46

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are

¶47

found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

¶48

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the

¶49

Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

¶50

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the

¶51

above terms.

¶52

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

¶53

(emphasis supplied)

¶54

Admittedly, in ‘Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan’ (supra) and

¶55

‘Hasanujjaman & others’ (supra), the accused therein had been granted the concession of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after they had undergone approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time offenders as is borne out from the orders.

¶56

In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 05.11.2024 and only 03 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against

¶57

VINAY MAHAJANhim. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be 2025.08.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRM-M-6645-2025 #5#

¶59

diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

¶60

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner- Kanav Khanna son of Gagan Khanna is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the cases mentioned in this order.

¶61

In addition the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

¶62

The petition stands disposed of.

¶63

		( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE
Augus	t 08, 2025
Vinay
	*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
	*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶64

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kanav Khanna v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanav Khanna v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdeep Singh Alias Deepi and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gourav Tomar Vs State of Haryana

M/S Surat Singh Satbir Singh Commission Agents Vs Sunil

Soni Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ayeesha Khan Vs State of Haryana and Another

Vikasdeep Singh Alias Akash Vs State of Punjab