Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4623 (PNJ)

NAVKIRAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/73776/2025 · 2026-03-09

Mandeep Pannu

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-73776- 140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Navkiran Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 53 Act (Section 29 District STF Wing, SAS Nagar 2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the supply of heroin in various areas of Amritsar and was present near the turn of Pr Amritsar. The secret informer also disclosed the description of the outfit worn by the petitioner at that time. Acting upon the said information, the police party -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU . Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. . H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in 53 dated 29.03.2024, registered under Sections (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station District STF Wing, SAS Nagar. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the supply of heroin in various areas of Amritsar and was present near the turn of Pritam Enclave, opposite Rian International School, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The secret informer also disclosed the description of the outfit worn by the petitioner at that time. Acting upon the said information, the police party -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73776-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in , registered under Sections 21-C of the NDPS at Police Station special task force, As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the supply of heroin in various areas of Amritsar and was present itam Enclave, opposite Rian International School, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The secret informer also disclosed the description of the outfit worn by the petitioner at that time. Acting upon the said information, the police party petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the NDPS special task force, As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the supply of heroin in various areas of Amritsar and was present itam Enclave, opposite Rian International School, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The secret informer also disclosed the description of the outfit worn by the petitioner at that time. Acting upon the said information, the police party TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73776- conducted a raid at the disclose that a polythene bag wrapped in a peach carrying in his hand, was searched and heroin weighing 650 grams was recovered therefrom. On the basis of the said recove 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024 and has undergone a sub incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the earlier bail petition bearing CRM-M 08.04.2025 and 05.08.2025, respectively Court again after a considerable period of custody. Learned counsel argues that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take long to conclude. 4. Per contra submits that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. However, the custody certificate filed by the State has been taken on record, which indicates that the petitioner has custody. It is also not disputed that out of the 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Without commenting upon the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024. The trial is at an initial stage and -2025 (O&M) conducted a raid at the disclosed place and apprehended the petitioner. It is alleged that a polythene bag wrapped in a peach-coloured cloth, which the petitioner was carrying in his hand, was searched and heroin weighing 650 grams was recovered therefrom. On the basis of the said recovery, the present FIR came to be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024 and has undergone a sub incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the earlier bail petition M-11995 of 2025 and CRM-M and 05.08.2025, respectively and the petitioner is approaching this gain after a considerable period of custody. Learned counsel argues that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take long to conclude. Per contra, learned State counsel has submits that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. However, the custody certificate filed by the State has been taken on record, which indicates that the petitioner has undergone 01 year, 11 months a . It is also not disputed that out of the 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024. The trial is at an initial stage and -2- d place and apprehended the petitioner. It is alleged coloured cloth, which the petitioner was carrying in his hand, was searched and heroin weighing 650 grams was recovered ry, the present FIR came to be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the earlier bail petition M-39583-2025 was withdrawn on and the petitioner is approaching this gain after a considerable period of custody. Learned counsel argues that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take long to conclude. , learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. However, the custody certificate filed by the State has been taken on record, which undergone 01 year, 11 months and 07 days in . It is also not disputed that out of the 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024. The trial is at an initial stage and d place and apprehended the petitioner. It is alleged coloured cloth, which the petitioner was carrying in his hand, was searched and heroin weighing 650 grams was recovered ry, the present FIR came to be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has stantial period of incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the earlier bail petitions was withdrawn on and the petitioner is approaching this gain after a considerable period of custody. Learned counsel argues that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. However, the custody certificate filed by the State has been taken on record, which nd 07 days in . It is also not disputed that out of the 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024. The trial is at an initial stage and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73776- out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any useful purpose. 6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 circumstances of the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "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 other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7. In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2025 (O&M) out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any useful purpose. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that oner is involved in another case of similar nature judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said oduced hereinbelow:- "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 other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is e released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate -3- out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any useful purpose. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that of similar nature, reference is placed upon the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State in which, it is held that the facts and the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the cases). The relevant portion of the said "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 In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is e released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State in which, it is held that the facts and the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the cases). The relevant portion of the said "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 has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the In view of the totality of the circumstances, particularly the period of the trial and the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is e released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73776- 9. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. March 09, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document