IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-52457-2025 Date of decision: 23.09.2025 AMANDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition is for seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 132 dated 21.06.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27-A, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that recovery of 9.5 grams of Heroin had been effected from co-accused Gursewak Singh @ Baba. He nominated one Simrajit Singh @ Mithu in his disclosure statement who further nominated the petitioner as an accused. He contends that no recovery of any nature whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that he has clean antecedents. He contends that the petitioner is in judicial custody and is not required any further for the same. VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.24 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-52457-2025 -2- He contends that the charge sheet has not been filed so far and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time for its conclusion. 3. Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 5. Taking into consideration the circumstances notice above and the fact that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the fact that he has clean antecedents and has been in custody for more than three months and bearing in mind that the proceedings are likely to take long time for its conclusion, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 6. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 8. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.24 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document