CRM-M-60076- 214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rajeev Kumar @ Raju State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section 22 of the Psychotropic Substa the NDPS Act added later on), 2. accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving intoxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Tablets IP Lomotil. 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. -2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Rajeev Kumar @ Raju versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.69 dated ences punishable under Section 22 of the Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving intoxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Tablets IP Lomotil. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60076-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: July 24, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. AG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) for grant of regular bail to dated 18.06.2023, registered for the ences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of at Police Station Julkan, Patiala. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 1980 intoxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. 1 2023 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 439 of the Code of for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and (Section 29 of an 1980 intoxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate that the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-60076- Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that and the folly thereof canno has further iterated that the petitioner has than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that rigors of Section 37 dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited till date. The shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. -2023 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that and the folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival ailable records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 03 have been examined The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is procrastinating t be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.09.2023. Total and only 03 have been examined rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 2 the trial is procrastinating Learned counsel suffered incarceration for more by are serious in nature Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate parties and have gone through whereinafter Total and only 03 have been examined rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-60076- 6.1. forth on record by the petitioner, folly thereof cannot be fastened certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suf month & is not the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 21 of the reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, passed by this Court in of Punjab, decided on 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). undertrial is not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- -2023 (O&M) A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the forth on record by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than not shown to be involved in any other case/ FIR. the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, sed by this Court in CRM-M No.64074 of 2024 decided on 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court n addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with documentary, during the trial. 3 orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is procrastinating and upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner fered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years and 01 in any other case/ FIR. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands Constitution of India. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, as well as the dicta M No.64074 of 2024 titled Kulwinder v. State decided on 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, n addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. 3 brought indicates that the trial is procrastinating and As per custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner 01 In this view of stands A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Javed Gulam as well as the dicta Kulwinder v. State Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following any evidence, oral or MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-60076- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any o State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. -2023 (O&M) (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, w trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any o State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. 4 The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in fence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the 4 The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on ith the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in fence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed ther sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-60076- 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 24, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2023 (O&M) Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of e the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 5 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of e the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment