Rakesh Kumar Alias Kaleshi Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Rakesh Kumar Alias Kaleshi Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail pending trial granted; petitioner to furnish bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to appearing on each and every date of hearing and fully co-operating with the trial court; State of Punjab at liberty to seek recall of the order in case of recurrence or misuse of the concession of bail; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.0131 dated 26.09.2023 under Section 22 NDPS Act, considering his period of custody, the pace of trial, and the non-commercial nature of the alleged recovery. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has been in custody since 26.09.2023, charges were framed on 18.03.2024 and only 01 of 09 prosecution witnesses has been examined, conclusion of trial may take sufficient long time; the alleged recovery is non-commercial in nature and the State raised no objection that release would influence witnesses or hamper the trial; therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Key takeaways

Release on bail is subject to the condition that the petitioner appears on each and every date of hearing and fully co-operates with the learned Special Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournment(s).ratio¶25
The observations in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶26
In case there is recurrence or any misuse of the concession of bail by the petitioner, the State of Punjab would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.) allowed a regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS arising from FIR No.0131 dated 26.09.2023, Section 22 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala. The petitioner, in custody since 26.09.2023 with charges framed on 18.03.2024 and only 01 of 09 prosecution witnesses examined, faced an alleged recovery of 210 loose intoxicating tablets, which was noted to be non-commercial in nature. Although the State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was involved in 03 more NDPS cases, the Court held that further incarceration would serve no purpose, particularly absent any State objection that release would influence witnesses or hamper the trial. Bail was granted on furnishing bonds, with conditions of attendance and co-operation, liberty reserved to the State to seek recall upon misuse of bail, and an express caveat that the observations are not an expression of opinion on the merits.

CRM-M-211

211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-982-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.01.2025

Rakesh Kumar @ Kaleshi

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

Present: Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.0131 dated 26.09.2023, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) , registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab.

Allegations are that 210 loose intoxicating tablets were recovered from the petitioner; whereas, recovery of 220 such tablets was effected from co-accused Vikas @ Vicky.

Contends that petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2023; charges were framed on 18.03.2024; and out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far. Further submits that

alleged recovery against the petitioner is non-commercial in nature.

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.19 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-1-

CRM-M-211

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer, on instructions, submits that petitioner is a habitual offender inasmuch as he is involved in 03 more cases under the NDPS Act.

Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.

Concededly, petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2023; charges were framed on 18.03.2024, but out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far; therefore, conclusion of trial may take sufficient long time. Also noteworthy that the recovery alleged against petitioner is non-commercial in nature. It is also not the objection of State that in case, petitioner is released on bail, he shall influence the witnesses or hamper the course of trial, in any manner; thus, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

Consequently, present petition is allowed; petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Petitioner shall appear on each & every date of hearing and to fully co-operate with the learned Special Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournment(s).

The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

It is clarified that in case there is recurrence or any misuse of concession of bail on the part of the petitioner, State of Punjab

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.19 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

CRM-M-211

would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

17.01.2025 *atulsethi*	(MAHABIR SINGH JUDGE	SINDHU)
Whether speaking / reasoned :	Yes	No
Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.19 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-