CRM-M-55961 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 223 Naryan Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner Section 18 of the (for short ‘NDPS Act’) first petition, bearing number Court on 25.07.2024. 2. challaned and opium to c 27.10.2012 faced trial and had been convicted. The present petitioner was absconding and hence cou learned trial Court. had been dismissed by making the following observations: 55961-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Naryan Singh Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 131 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Nabha Kotwali, District Patiala. The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-18957 Court on 25.07.2024. The petitioner has been booked challaned and chargesheeted on the allegations that he h opium to co-accused Ishar Singh and Manohar Singh 27.10.2012 along with the aforementioned quantity of opium. faced trial and had been convicted. The present petitioner was absconding and hence could not be arrested. He was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. He had been arrested on 11.12.2023 had been dismissed by making the following observations: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55961-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The instant one is the second petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the 131 dated 27.10.2012, registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Nabha Kotwali, District Patiala. The 18957-2024, was dismissed by this The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid case and has been chargesheeted on the allegations that he had supplied 10 kgs of and Manohar Singh, who were arrested on with the aforementioned quantity of opium. The co-accused faced trial and had been convicted. The present petitioner was absconding and ld not be arrested. He was declared a proclaimed offender by the He had been arrested on 11.12.2023. His previous petition had been dismissed by making the following observations: -1- 2024 (O&M) 21.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant one is the second petition, filed under Section 483 of to the , registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Nabha Kotwali, District Patiala. The , was dismissed by this has been ad supplied 10 kgs of who were arrested on accused faced trial and had been convicted. The present petitioner was absconding and ld not be arrested. He was declared a proclaimed offender by the previous petition MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.22 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55961 55961-2024 (O&M) “6. As per allegations in the FIR, co and Manohar Singh were apprehended by the police party on 27.10.2012 and the recovery of 10 kgs. of opium was effected from them, which falls under the commercial quantity. Admittedly, the aforesaid co convicted by the trial Court for petitioner was nominated in this case on the disclosure of the co-accused, wherein they stated that they had procured the recovered contraband from the petitioner, who had instructed them to sell the same in Punjab. He had also given them his account number so that they can deposit the money in his account after selling the contraband. A perusal of the status report shows that the account in question was verified during investigation and it was found in the name of the petitioner, petitioner was the mastermind of the subject crime. The petitioner has been absconding for a period more than 11 years. During the interregnum, he was declared a proclaimed offender and even an FIR under Section 174 of IPC had been registered against him. In view thereof, the apprehension of learned State counsel cannot be said to be unfounded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he can again abscond. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also be attracted against him be involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity of the contraband recovered from the co quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” As per allegations in the FIR, co-accused Ishar Sin and Manohar Singh were apprehended by the police party on 27.10.2012 and the recovery of 10 kgs. of opium was effected from them, which falls under the commercial quantity. Admittedly, the aforesaid co-accused have been convicted by the trial Court for a period of 10 years. The petitioner was nominated in this case on the disclosure of accused, wherein they stated that they had procured the recovered contraband from the petitioner, who had instructed them to sell the same in Punjab. He had also ven them his account number so that they can deposit the money in his account after selling the contraband. A perusal of the status report shows that the account in question was verified during investigation and it was found in the name of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner was the mastermind of the subject crime. The petitioner has been absconding for a period more than 11 years. During the interregnum, he was declared a proclaimed offender and even an FIR under Section 174 egistered against him. In view thereof, the apprehension of learned State counsel cannot be said to be unfounded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he can again abscond. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also be attracted against him as he is stated to be involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity of the contraband recovered from the co-accused, the ence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” -2- accused Ishar Singh and Manohar Singh were apprehended by the police party on 27.10.2012 and the recovery of 10 kgs. of opium was effected from them, which falls under the commercial accused have been a period of 10 years. The petitioner was nominated in this case on the disclosure of accused, wherein they stated that they had procured the recovered contraband from the petitioner, who had instructed them to sell the same in Punjab. He had also ven them his account number so that they can deposit the money in his account after selling the contraband. A perusal of the status report shows that the account in question was verified during investigation and it was found which shows that the petitioner was the mastermind of the subject crime. The petitioner has been absconding for a period more than 11 years. During the interregnum, he was declared a proclaimed offender and even an FIR under Section 174-A egistered against him. In view thereof, the apprehension of learned State counsel cannot be said to be unfounded that if the petitioner is released on bail, he can again abscond. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS as he is stated to be involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity accused, the ence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.22 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55961 3. custody since 11.12.2023. The considerable time to conclude. He is b been effected investigation to show that his bank account contained any entry regarding deposit of any him under the provisions of not serve any useful purpose. The prolong period of custody extended a ground to him to seek bail to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Assistant Advocate General, change in the circumstances since the date of dismissal of the previous petition. C the petitioner show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. It is argued that keeping in his antecede allegations benefit of regular bail. 5. 6. disclosure statement were apprehended on 27.10.2012 and was effected 55961-2024 (O&M) It is argued by learned counsel for the custody since 11.12.2023. The trial has not yet commenced and it will take considerable time to conclude. He is behind bars since long. No effected from him. Nothing has been collected during the course of investigation to show that his bank account contained any entry regarding deposit of any drug money. He is on bail in the two FIRs him under the provisions of the NDPS A not serve any useful purpose. The prolong period of custody extended a ground to him to seek bail. Accordingly, it is urged that the p to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Status report has been filed by the respondent Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that there is no substantive change in the circumstances since the date of dismissal of the previous Charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act h the petitioner. Now trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. It is argued that keeping in his antecedents, act and conduct and also allegations levelled against the petitioner, he benefit of regular bail. The rival submissions have been given due deliberations. The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused Ishar Singh and Manohar Singh were apprehended on 27.10.2012 and from whom, was effected. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender as he ounsel for the petitioner that he is in rial has not yet commenced and it will take ehind bars since long. No recovery has from him. Nothing has been collected during the course of investigation to show that his bank account contained any entry regarding ail in the two FIRs as registered against Act. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The prolong period of custody extended a it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. s report has been filed by the respondent-state. Learned Punjab has argued that there is no substantive change in the circumstances since the date of dismissal of the previous harges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been framed against trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. It is argued that keeping in view and also in view of the nature of the levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended submissions have been given due deliberations. ed as an accused on the basis of accused Ishar Singh and Manohar Singh, who from whom, recovery of 10 kg of opium The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender as he -3- etitioner that he is in rial has not yet commenced and it will take recovery has from him. Nothing has been collected during the course of investigation to show that his bank account contained any entry regarding registered against further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The prolong period of custody extended a etition deserves state. Learned Punjab has argued that there is no substantive change in the circumstances since the date of dismissal of the previous as been framed against trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. The view nature of the does not deserve to be extended ed as an accused on the basis of the who recovery of 10 kg of opium The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender as he MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.22 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55961 could not be apprehended at that time. declared to be so has not been mentioned in the status rep respondent 174-A of IPC was registere custody since 11.12.2023 witness has been examined till date, which shows that delayed as not even a single witness has been keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, I am of useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal sound sureties However, it will be open for in case the 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 21.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Wheth Whether reportable 55961-2024 (O&M) could not be apprehended at that time. However, the day when he had been declared to be so has not been mentioned in the status rep respondent-State though as per the custody certificate, the case under section IPC was registered against him as on 09.07.2021. custody since 11.12.2023. No recovery had been ess has been examined till date, which shows that as not even a single witness has been keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. ingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 21.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable However, the day when he had been declared to be so has not been mentioned in the status report as filed by the tate though as per the custody certificate, the case under section d against him as on 09.07.2021. The petitioner is in No recovery had been effected from him. No ess has been examined till date, which shows that the trial is substantially as not even a single witness has been examined so far. Therefore, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and two to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail is found involved in any other subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- However, the day when he had been ort as filed by the tate though as per the custody certificate, the case under section The petitioner is in ffected from him. No trial is substantially Therefore, attendant the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be bonds and two to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.22 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document