1 CRM-M-19561-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19561-2025 Reserved on: 02.08.2025 Pronounced on: 20.08.2025 Amit Kumar @ Rajan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 72 23.05.2020 Mehal Kalan, District Barnala 21/22/25/29 of NDPS Act and 467/468/471/120B IPC 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 19 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. On 23.05.2020 based on prior information, the Police seized 2500 Clovidol 100 SR tablets from co-accused/Lovepreet Singh, Satvir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Ravi. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. During investigation, 2,50,000 intoxicant tablets and Rs. 4 lacs were recovered from Balwinder Singh, 12000 intoxicant tablets from Zulafkar @ Zulfi and thereafter on 02.06.2020 10500 intoxicant tablets were recovered from Bittu Ram and Aman Singla, 20,000 intoxicant tablets, 97600 capsules of pelvorin spas and Rs.85,000/- drug money was received from co-accused Harsh Bhatia. Later on 150000 intoxicant tablets Clovidol 100 SR, 196200 intoxicant tablets Alprazolam 0.5, 142000 intoxicant capsules pelvorin spas 29000 intoxicant tablets of clovidol were received from the possession of petitioner. ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-19561-2025 2 4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 6. The State’s counsel opposes the bail and handed over copy of an order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India in CRM-M No. 13577-2025, which reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. We are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than five years and the trial has not concluded, although, substantial number of witnesses have been examined, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab, pointed out that for the last six dates, one of the co-accused (Krishan Arora), who had been granted bail on medical grounds by the High Court, has not been appearing before the trial court, as such, no further witness could be examined and the status as it existed prior to 28.05.2025 has remained as it is. We, therefore, direct that the State of Punjab may take appropriate steps for seeking cancellation of bail granted to such accused, who is trying to delay the trial and in case such an application is filed, the same would be entertained on its own merits by the concerned court. It goes without saying that the defence will extend all cooperation during the trial and in the event the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, for no fault attributable to the petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to apply for bail afresh. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.” 7. Quantity involved in this case is massive. Hon’ble Supreme Court already directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within one year, there is evidence of delay in trial due to the absence of accused and in case, petitioner is granted bail in that case, he may also contribute in such delay, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. However, ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-19561-2025 3 liberty reserved to file a fresh petition after a period of one year i.e. after 03.05.2026. 8. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 9. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 20.08.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh