Raj Singh Vs State of Punjab

¶1

Prayer in the present petition f iled under Section 483 BNSS is for gra n t of regular bail to the petitio n er in case FIR No.353 dated 15.11.2023 , registered under Sections 21/2 9 NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 212 IPC (a d ded later on), at Police Station S TF, District Amritsar/Mohali. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 11 months. H e alleges false implication. The alleged rec o very from him is of 877 gra m s heroin, while that from coaccused K a raj Singh was 700 grams an d has been granted bail, vide Annexure P -3, after being in custody of 1 y ear, 10 months and 22 days, so was co-ac c used, Harpreet Singh @ Ha p py, from whom the alleged recovery w as 910 grams, vide order dat e d 13.01.2026, after being in

¶2

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.04 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶3

almost similar custody. Charges have been framed on 03.07.2024, however, only 7 out of 25 witnesses have been examined. He is involved in 1 more case under NDPS Act wherein he is on bail. R eliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 .

¶4

The custody certificate dated 03.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 10 months and 19 days.

¶5

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot alongwith co-accused and is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the co-accused having been released on bail and the petitioner being on bail in other case.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

¶8

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.04 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶9

7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶10

8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail .

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 10 months and 19 days; on bail in other case; co-accused are on bail; charges stand framed on 03.07.2024, however out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined as yet; the trial is likely to take a considerable time; further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of

¶12

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.04 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶13

Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.

¶14

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶18

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶19

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶20

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶21

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶22

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶23

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶24

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.04 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶25

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶26

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶27

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.04 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Raj Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh 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

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shambhu Parsad Gaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sukhdev Singh Alias Laddu Vs State of Punjab

Ashish Vs State of Haryana

Pyara Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sahil Ghai Vs State of Punjab