Bindu Singh Alias Binder Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.34 dated 21.11.2022, registered under Section 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act (Sections 25 of NDPS Act and 25/25(1) of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station SSOC, District Amritsar.

¶18

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3 years and more than 1 month. He alleges false implication. As per the allegations, he is stated to be holding a bag along with the co-accused Sukhvir Singh @ Kala, from which the contraband in question was allegedly recovered. Co-accused have been granted regular bail vide orders dated 24.01.2023, 07.10.2023 and 10.09.2025, Annexures P-3 to P-5 respectively. Charges have been framed on 04.07.2023, however, out of 42 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case .

¶19

The custody certificate dated 08.01.2026, filed by the learned State

¶20

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.01.09 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-72705-2025 (O&M) 2

¶22

counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars 3 years, 1 month and 10 days.

¶23

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot along with commercial quantity of contraband. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

6. 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.

¶26

7. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M57386-2022, 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.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular

¶28

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.01.09 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-72705-2025 (O&M) 3

¶30

that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 1 month and 10 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused are on bail; charges were framed wayback on 04.07.2023, however, there are still 41 more prosecution witnesses remaining, 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 Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed.

¶31

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:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.01.09 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-72705-2025 (O&M) 4

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

11. 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.

¶45

	(AMAN C J	HAUDHARY) UDGE
09.01.2026
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
Whether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶46

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.01.09 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bindu Singh Alias Binder v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Singh Alias Binder 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

Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jiwan Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Shah Vs State of Punjab