Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

The instant one is the fourth petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.233 dated 24.12.2023 registered under Sections 22C, 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda. The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, whereas previous two petitions were dismissed by this Court.

¶16

As per the allegations, on 24.12.2023, the accused Satnam Singh and Gurpreet Singh were apprehended along with their motorbike and 7600 tablets of Tramadol Hydrocholoride wherein 1565.6 grams, 3600 tablets of Alprazolam having weight of 370.8 grams were recovered from their conscious possession which were taken into custody. The above named accused were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements to the effect that they had

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-15417-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

purchased the contraband from the petitioner who was nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2024. Investigation now stands completed.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He has remained in custody since 04.03.2024. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petitions. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. Co-accused Satnam Singh and Gurpreet Singh, from whom the alleged recovery had been effected, have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be granted the benefit of regular bail. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶24

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

¶25

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by abovenamed co-accused, from whom the alleged recovery of the contraband was effected on 24.12.2023. The allegations

¶26

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-15417-2026 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

against the petitioner are that he had supplied the recovered contraband to them. A perusal of the record reveals that both the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is on better footing than that of the co-accused. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would obviously take some time. These factors, in the considered opinion of this Court, amount to substantial change in the circumstances, which entitles the petitioner to seek bail. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that a case for grant of regular bail has been made in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence is exempted by the trial Court.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

¶31

20.07.2026

¶32

Waseem R. Ansari

¶33

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶35

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.21 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deepak Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lovepreet Singh Alias Love Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sonu Kumar Saroj Vs State of Punjab

Yashpreet through Her Father Spo Parvinder Singh Vs Sms Sawhney General General Secretary and Chairman and Others

Surjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab