CRM-M-19093- 308 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Abhishek Kumar @ Aman Batra 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 Psychotropic Substances Julkan, Patiala. 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 18.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Abhishek Kumar @ Aman Batra versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Manjot Kaur, 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 Sections 22 and 29 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) 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 toxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Tablets IP Lomotil. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19093-2024 (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 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 4200 toxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 1 2024 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent Code of for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 4200 toxicant tablets, i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulfate Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-19093- submitted that complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof cannot be fastened has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations r and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, th 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 29.09.2023. Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 03 have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar g 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 forwar -2024 (O&M) submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel 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 by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, th dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.09.2023. Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 03 have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar g 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 forwar 2 the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is procrastinating upon the petitioner. Learned counsel 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 by aised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned 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 dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the 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 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 03 have been examined till date. 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 2 the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is procrastinating upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by aised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the e same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate I have heard counsel for the 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 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 03 have been examined ive 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, d to MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-19093- indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. forth on record by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State couns has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years month and 02 days. Section 37 of the NDPS Act Constitution of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in No.2787 of 2024 Maharashtra and another, CRM-M No.64074 of 2024 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). stated to be involved in 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’ble Supreme Court in and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 -2024 (O&M) indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth on record by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State couns has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years and 02 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, as well as the dicta passed by this Cour M No.64074 of 2024 titled Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 03 more cases. However, this factum can 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 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’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 3 indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth on record by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 23.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years, 01 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under diluted in light of the Article 21 of the India. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of as well as the dicta passed by this Court in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, decided on 10.1.2025 (neutral citation no.2025:PHHC:002695). Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is more cases. 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 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 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of 3 indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth on record by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. As per custody el, the petitioner 01 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under diluted in light of the Article 21 of the India. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a Criminal Appeal Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of t in decided on Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is not 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 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 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. ; a Division Bench judgment of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-19093- the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of RCR (Criminal) 477 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 s conditions:- -2024 (O&M) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana 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. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court in 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 any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the 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 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 4 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and 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. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial hall 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. 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 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 commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is 4 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) 2022 , decided on 29.11.2021, and Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial hall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or 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 Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the 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 his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.24 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-19093- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed July 24, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2024 (O&M) 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 trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. 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 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon 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 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 5 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /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 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since 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