IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 104 Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The instant the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 added later on) of the at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Pun 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of 2500 Tramadol Table petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other case been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45389 Date of decision: @ Jeeta VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant second petition has been filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Pun Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of 2500 Tramadol Tablets had been effected. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that only 04 witnesses have been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 45389-2024(O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 55 dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 22 (Section 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, Punjab. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the allegations set out in present FIR, the police had apprehended the petitioner on receipt of the secret information. It is contended that recovery of . He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2023 and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months. He further contends that and that only 04 witnesses have been examined so far out of the total of 14 witnesses relied upon by the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104 CRM 3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail petition (i.e. CRM on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not dispute that the already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as on date. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongw 5. Notwithstanding 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months have elapsed since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial having not made much a subsequent application for grant of regular the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant of regular bail. 6. Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the p appropriate to allow 7. Accordingly, the instant petition ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Cou CRM-M-45389-2024(O&M) Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail petition (i.e. CRM-M-58667-2023) earlier filed by the petitioner was di on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not dispute that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition. Notwithstanding that the earlier petition (i.e. CRM 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months d since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial having not made much headway, an accused would be within its rights to move a subsequent application for grant of regular bail and that long incarceration of the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the p allow the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate 2 Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the bail 2023) earlier filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 09.05.2024 and that there are no fresh grounds for granting concession of regular bail. He further submits that 02 witnesses have been given up and that only 08 witnesses remain to be examined by the police. He however does not petitioner is not involved in any other case and that he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 06 months as I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have ith the present petition. the earlier petition (i.e. CRM-M-58667- 2023) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, however, the fact that a period of more than 01 year and 05 months d since then cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner having undergone an actual custody of more than 02 and a half years and the trial , an accused would be within its rights to move bail and that long incarceration of the petitioner would be a ground itself for moving a fresh application for grant Taking into consideration the period of custody as well as the stage of trial and also the clean antecedents of the petitioner, I deem it is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety rt/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104 CRM concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 28.10.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-M-45389-2024(O&M) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or The observation made hereinabove shall not be expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case available material. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 3 It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or 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 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.10.28 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document