CRM-M-39497- 238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Amandeep Singh @ Aman State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Act’), at Police Station 2. accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving intoxicating tablets of having salt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. 3. is in custody since 19.04.2025. -2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Amandeep Singh @ Aman versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under S Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Aur, District S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving intoxicating tablets of Etizolam weighing about 1.82 gram having salt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 19.04.2025. Learned counsel has 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39497-2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.16 dated 15.03.2025, ences punishable under Sections 22/29/61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Aur, District S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 20 weighing about 1.82 gram and 6 injections Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Learned counsel has iterated that the 1 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , 22/29/61 of the 1985 (for short ‘NDPS The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 20 and 6 injections the petitioner that the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- mandatory provisions of complied with from inherent defects. Learned counsel prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is that of a disclosure statement by co prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegation and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. State counsel in Court, which is taken on record. petitioner is involved in multiple other NDPS Act, and thus, 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has date. Indubitably, the conclusion of trial will take its own time. The contraband alleged to have been recovered commercial in nature, and therefore, rigours of Section 37 would not apply. The rival conte ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it -2025 mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not complied with by the prosecution, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel further prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is that of a disclosure statement by co-accused, namely, Amanjit Singh 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. State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated in Court, which is taken on record. He petitioner is involved in multiple other FIR NDPS Act, and thus, he ought not to be extended I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has Indubitably, the conclusion of trial will take its own time. The contraband alleged to have been recovered commercial in nature, and therefore, rigours of Section 37 would not apply. 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 2 the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been , and thus, the prosecution case suffers further iterated that the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is that of a disclosure Amanjit Singh. Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by s raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 29.07.2025 He has further submitted that the FIR(s), including those under the he ought not to be extended the benefit of regular bail. rival parties and have gone through arrested on 19.04.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 28.05.2025. Total prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till Indubitably, the conclusion of trial will take its own time. The contraband alleged to have been recovered in the FIR in question, is non- commercial in nature, and therefore, rigours of Section 37 would not apply. ntions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it 2 been , and thus, the prosecution case suffers prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is that of a disclosure Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by s raised against the petitioner are serious in nature Learned .07.2025 submitted that the those under the parties and have gone through whereinafter . Total been examined till Indubitably, the conclusion of trial will take its own time. The - commercial in nature, and therefore, rigours of Section 37 would not apply. ntions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible h indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. State counsel, the petitioner 03 months & is shown to be involved in 6.2. 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/circu 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 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 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to -2025 appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible h indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated 29.07.2025 filed by the learne State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of months & is shown to be involved in multiple Further, as per the said custody certificate stated to be involved in multiple FIR(s). 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/circu 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 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 3 appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated 29.07.2025 filed by the learned has already suffered incarceration for a period of multiple other cases/ FIR(s). Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is 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 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 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 3 appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it as been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of d has already suffered incarceration for a period of the petitioner is 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 mstances 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner s conditions: 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. -2025 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 an 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 man trial. (viii) 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 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 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. 4 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 Investigating 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 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 In case of breach 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 4 /Duty Magistrate. However, trial hall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or y 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 Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior ner 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 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 , shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-39497- 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as a opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5 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 n expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment