219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AMARJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This petition has been filed under regular bail to the petitio registered under Sections 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell Amritsar, Intelligence Wing (CID), District Gurdaspur Punjab. 2. The present FIR was registered on the basis of secret information that Amarjeet Singh Singh and Dalbir Kaur petitioner-Amarjeet Singh has to supply the Heroin, he takes along with him, in order to avoid any suspicion. The secret informer further informed that all the accused are roaming in their Tata Indica Car bearing No. PB-10-CY-5466 in the area of Amrit Heroin. Finding the information reliable, a ruqa was sent through H.C. Rajesh Kumar for registration of the FIR. On these allegations, FIR registered. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AMARJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under regular bail to the petitioner in the case bearing FIR No. registered under Sections 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell Amritsar, Intelligence Wing (CID), District Gurdaspur Punjab. The present FIR was registered on the basis of secret information that Amarjeet Singh (petitioner herein), Gursewek Singh, Sher Singh Singh and Dalbir Kaur are doing smuggling of Heroin and whenever Amarjeet Singh has to supply the Heroin, he takes along with him, in order to avoid any suspicion. The secret informer further informed that all the accused are roaming in their Tata Indica Car bearing No. 5466 in the area of Amritsar Batala bypass for supplying the Heroin. Finding the information reliable, a ruqa was sent through H.C. Rajesh Kumar for registration of the FIR. On these allegations, FIR IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28542-2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS grant of ner in the case bearing FIR No.30 dated 09.09.2023 registered under Sections 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell Amritsar, Intelligence Wing (CID), District Gurdaspur Punjab. The present FIR was registered on the basis of secret information , Gursewek Singh, Sher Singh, Ranjit are doing smuggling of Heroin and whenever Amarjeet Singh has to supply the Heroin, he takes Dalbir Kaur along with him, in order to avoid any suspicion. The secret informer further informed that all the accused are roaming in their Tata Indica Car bearing No. sar Batala bypass for supplying the Heroin. Finding the information reliable, a ruqa was sent through H.C. Rajesh Kumar for registration of the FIR. On these allegations, FIR(supra) was MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28542 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the contraband recovered from the dashboard of the car, belongs to Ranjit Singh, who has been granted the concession of regular bail ordinate Bench of this Court in case as Ranjit Singh contends that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and it was only a matter of co present in the car along with other co are family members and have been entangled in the Ranjit Singh was liable to be prosecuted for keeping in possession the alleged contraband. Learned counsel submits that s namely, Dalbir Kaur has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court in case bearing of Punjab vide order dated custody period of 01 has not concluded its evidence as out of total 17 witnesses, only 02 have been examined so far. petitioner is now squarely covered by the j in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 4. Learned State counsel petitioner, which is taken on record and petitioner on the ground that pleaded by the petitioner in the present case. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act and alleged contraband 28542-2025 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the contraband recovered from the dashboard of the car, belongs to Ranjit Singh, who has been granted the concession of regular bail ordinate Bench of this Court in case bearing CRM Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab vide order dated 11.12.2024. the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and it was only a matter of co-incidence that the petitioner was also present in the car along with other co-accused are family members and have been entangled in the Ranjit Singh was liable to be prosecuted for keeping in possession the alleged Learned counsel submits that s namely, Dalbir Kaur has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court in case bearing CRM-M No.1423 of 2024 vide order dated 16.01.2024. Further, the petitioner has undergone a custody period of 01 year, 08 months and 15 days and till date, the prosecution has not concluded its evidence as out of total 17 witnesses, only 02 have been examined so far. Learned counsel furthermore now squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023. earned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, on the ground that this Court cannot examine the probable defence pleaded by the petitioner in the present case. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act and alleged contraband Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that admittedly, the contraband recovered from the dashboard of the car, belongs to Ranjit Singh, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by the Co- CRM-M No.25952 of 2024 titled vide order dated 11.12.2024. He further the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged incidence that the petitioner was also sed. Furthermore, all the accused are family members and have been entangled in the FIR (supra), whereas only Ranjit Singh was liable to be prosecuted for keeping in possession the alleged Learned counsel submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Dalbir Kaur has been granted the concession of regular bail by this 1423 of 2024 titled as Dalbir Kaur vs. State . Further, the petitioner has undergone a year, 08 months and 15 days and till date, the prosecution has not concluded its evidence as out of total 17 witnesses, only 02 have been more submits that the case of the udgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP produces the custody certificate of the per contra, opposes the prayer of the this Court cannot examine the probable defence pleaded by the petitioner in the present case. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act and alleged contraband MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28542 recovered in the prese as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: 6. Having perusing the record behind the bar since trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 17 wi the prosecution, only 02 have been examined so far. would be determined served by further in further detention 28542-2025 3 recovered in the present case falls under the ambit of commercial quantity and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute un prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest i measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” Having heard learned counsel record of the case, it transpires behind the bar since 12.09.2023. The investigation of the case is complete trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 17 wi the prosecution, only 02 have been examined so far. determined at the time of trial. further detention of the accused/petitioner. detention without the prospect of nt case falls under the ambit of commercial quantity and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender , with respect to prevailing conditions 6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually for the parties and after transpires that the petitioner is The investigation of the case is complete The trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 02 have been examined so far. The culpability, if any, trial. No useful purpose shall be accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner of the trial being concluded in MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28542 the near future, would be Constitution of India. 7. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382 cases would not be a ground to 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. May 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 28542-2025 4 the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Amarjit Singh regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. , the involvement of the petitioner in other refuse grant of concession of regular bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the Amarjit Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment