Jagtar @ Kari Alias Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Jagtar @ Kari Alias Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the petitioner (if not required in any other case) on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to eight enumerated conditions (no misuse of liberty; no tampering with evidence; no absence at trial; no offence while on bail; deposit of passport; cellphone number to be given to IO/SHO and not changed without permission; no delay of trial; monthly affidavit of non-involvement in offences, with mandate on the State to move forthwith for cancellation if breached). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an undertrial accused in FIR No.83 dated 10.06.2024 (Sections 15, 25 and 29, NDPS Act; alleged recovery of 710 kgs. poppy-husk), is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in his second successive petition. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner had already suffered incarceration of 01 year, 03 months and 22 days as per the custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 filed by the State, which weighed in favour of grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

Though the petitioner's first regular bail petition was dismissed on merits on 28.11.2025, this Court entertained the second/successive petition, treating the changed factual milieu — principally the Supreme Court's grant of regular bail to co-accused Lali Singh — as constituting substantial change in circumstances, in line with the principles laid down in CRA-S-2332-2023 (Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another).

Key takeaways

Parity with co-accused Lali Singh — who was afforded concession of regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a fact not disputed by learned State counsel on a pointed query — was an essential factor on which the Court inclined to affirmatively consider the petition.ratio¶6.2
Only 02 of the total 34 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined fully (02 partly), making it indubitable that conclusion of the trial would take long; this supported release on bail.ratio¶6
Nothing tangible had been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second successive regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) by Jagtar @ Kari alias Jagtar Singh, accused in FIR No.83 dated 10.06.2024, P.S. Lehra, District Sangrur, under Sections 15 & 25 (Section 29 added later) NDPS Act for alleged recovery of 710 kgs. of poppy-husk — allowed. First petition had been dismissed on merits on 28.11.2025. Grant rested on: (i) parity with similarly placed co-accused Lali Singh granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 in SLP(Crl.) No(s).1899/2026, parity not disputed by the State; (ii) incarceration of 01 year, 03 months and 22 days per custody certificate dated 05.07.2026; (iii) only 02 of 34 prosecution witnesses examined fully (02 partly), so trial would take long; and (iv) nothing tangible to indicate likelihood of absconding or interference with evidence. Principles in CRA-S-2332-2023, Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another (successive bail petitions maintainable; require substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons) relied upon. Bail subject to conditions including passport deposit, monthly no-offence affidavit and disclosure of cellphone number to IO/SHO; breach entitles the State to seek cancellation. No expression of opinion on merits.

1

CRM-M-13274-2026

131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-13274-2026

Jagtar @ Ka r i Alias Jagtar Singh

….Petitione r

versus

State of Punj a b

….Responden t

Date of decision: July 06, 2026 Date of Uploading: July 06, 2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: - Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for t h e petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG P u njab.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition is the second at t empt filed under Section 483 o f the Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 2 3 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhil e Section 439 of Cr. P.C.) for grant of regul a r bail to the petitioner, in cas e bearing FIR No.83 dated 10.06.2024, regist e red for the offences punishabl e under Sectio n s 15 & 25 of the Narcotic Dr u gs and Psychotropic Substance s Act, 1985 (f o r short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) , at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.

The gravamen of the FIR in qu e stion is that the petitioner is a n accused of b e ing involved in an FIR pertainin g to NDPS Act involving allege d recovery of 710 kgs. of poppy-husk.

Learned counsel for the petitione r has iterated that the petitioner i s in custody si n ce 12.03.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner ha s

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

2

CRM-M-13274-2026

been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that somewhat similarly placed co-accused, namely, Lali Singh has been afforded concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1899/2026 . Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Per contra, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 18.04.2026 earlier filed on record, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner ought not to be extended concession of regular bail. However, on a pointed query, learned State counsel, assisted by Assistant Sub Inspector Prem Singh, it has not been disputed that the petitioner is similarly placed as co-accused, namely, Lali Singh who has been afforded concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned State counsel also seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 05.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on 07.04.2025. It is not in dispute that out of total 34 cited prosecution witnesses, 02 have been examined fully and 02 have been examined partly, till date. It is, thus, indubitable, that conclusion of the trial will take long. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

3

CRM-M-13274-2026

likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 22 days.

6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first petition was dismissed on merits thereof on 28.11.2025. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; essentially the factum of co-accused (Lali Singh) having been afforded concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in

CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another ;

relevant whereof reads as under:

“ 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

4

CRM-M-13274-2026

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. ”

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

5

CRM-M-13274-2026

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

July 06, 2026

mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.06 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment