CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 111-2 Kuldeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR 24.08.2023 of the NDPS Act and Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act Amargarh District Malerkotla (earlier District Sangrur). 2. order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. This Court does not deem it appropriate to reproduce the same lest it may burden the instant order. 3. perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the reasons recorded in the order dated 23.05.2025 (whereby the interim bail was extended to the petitioner) as also the petitioner, admittedly, not havi misused the concession of interim regular bail, this Court is inclined to confirm the said order. As per -14648-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR 24.08.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections of the NDPS Act and Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act Amargarh District Malerkotla (earlier District Sangrur). The petitioner was extended the concession of interim bail vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. This Court does not deem it appropriate to reproduce the same lest it may burden the instant order. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the reasons recorded in the order dated 23.05.2025 (whereby the interim bail was extended to the petitioner) as also the petitioner, admittedly, not havi misused the concession of interim regular bail, this Court is inclined to confirm the said order. As per custody certificate 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14648-2024 Date of decision: 25.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.113 dated , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Amargarh District Malerkotla (earlier District Sangrur). The petitioner was extended the concession of interim bail vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. This Court does not deem it appropriate to reproduce the same lest it may burden counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the reasons recorded in the order dated 23.05.2025 (whereby the interim bail was extended to the petitioner) as also the petitioner, admittedly, not havi misused the concession of interim regular bail, this Court is inclined to custody certificate dated 24.08.2025 filed by .2025 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for dated 21 and 29 at Police Station The petitioner was extended the concession of interim bail vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. This Court does not deem it appropriate to reproduce the same lest it may burden counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the reasons recorded in the order dated 23.05.2025 (whereby the interim bail was extended to the petitioner) as also the petitioner, admittedly, not having misused the concession of interim regular bail, this Court is inclined to dated 24.08.2025 filed by AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year and 0 the petitioner is stated to be involved in warrants have been issued him sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of re in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ Supreme Court in another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (Criminal) 477 as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts a 4. order dated 23.05.2025 is hereby made absolute be released on regular bail on satisfaction of the Ld. concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: -14648-2024 learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year and 06 months. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 05 warrants have been issued him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of re in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court i Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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 order dated 23.05.2025 is hereby made absolute be released on regular bail on the already furnished isfaction of the Ld. concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, or documentary, during the trial. 2 learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a Further, as per the said custody certificate 05 more cases in which production . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an nd circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and interim order dated 23.05.2025 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner is ordered to the already furnished bail/surety bonds to the isfaction of the Ld. concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain he petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a Further, as per the said custody certificate in which production . However, this factum cannot be a ground gular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR 2022 titled Balraj Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and interim etitioner is ordered to bail/surety bonds to the isfaction of the Ld. concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain use the liberty granted. oral AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5. which may be imposed by concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to move cancellation petitioner. 6. -14648-2024 (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, the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall no without prior 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 affidav Special Judge of NDPS 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 his bail 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 Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to move cancellation petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 3 The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date hall not commit any offence while The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with 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 The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned Special Judge of NDPS 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 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 merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date hall not commit any offence while with The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of , before the concerned Special Judge of NDPS 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 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, In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient of bail of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. application, if any, shall also August 25 Ajay -14648-2024 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. August 25, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 4 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.26 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document