IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 203 KARANBIR SINGH @ PREET STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 petitioner in case FIR No. of the Narcotic Drugs and Ps Police Station 2. petitioner was arrested on slow place with six witnesses still remaining to be examined, even though charges were framed almost two years back on 20.11.2023 has further argued that it is evidently a case of false implication as it is a matter of record that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents Learned counsel, while placing reliance on State of Uttar P that almost in identical cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had enlarged the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47029 Date of decision: KARANBIR SINGH @ PREET Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab with MHC Amanjit Singh. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL) The instant petition is the second petition filed under Section Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 petitioner in case FIR No.33 dated 03.05.2023 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner was arrested on 03.05.2023, the trial had been proceeding at a slow place with six witnesses still remaining to be examined, even though charges were framed almost two years back on 20.11.2023 has further argued that it is evidently a case of false implication as it is a matter of record that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents Learned counsel, while placing reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022] that almost in identical cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had enlarged the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 47029-2024 Date of decision: September 19, 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab The instant petition is the second petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the 03.05.2023 under Sections 21-C and 29 ychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at , District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). ed counsel for the petitioner submits that after the 03.05.2023, the trial had been proceeding at a slow place with six witnesses still remaining to be examined, even though charges were framed almost two years back on 20.11.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that it is evidently a case of false implication as it is a matter of record that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. Learned counsel, while placing reliance on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. radesh [SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022], has further submitted that almost in identical cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had enlarged the Petitioner .....Respondent The instant petition is the second petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the C and 29 ychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at ed counsel for the petitioner submits that after the 03.05.2023, the trial had been proceeding at a slow place with six witnesses still remaining to be examined, even though . Learned counsel has further argued that it is evidently a case of false implication as it is a . Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. , has further submitted Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-47029 accused therein on bail, even though the recovery effected had been classified as commercial, primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial. Learned counsel has, therefore, petitioner is covered by also, the trial has been prolonged for reasons not attributable petitioner be admitted to bail 3. and submissions made b custody period of the petitioner nor qua the stage of trial. Further, it has been asserted counsel that of the petitioner in drug trafficking, and on being nabbed, a recovery of 305 grams of heroin was made from the motorcycle, on which he was riding. On a pointed query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner never been booked in any of the present FIR. However, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner was booked in a case under the Arms Act in the year 2022. 4. relevant material placed on record. 5. was allegedly found in possession of 305 grams of heroin. The challan in the present case was presented on 27.10.2023 followed by framing of charges on 47029-2024 accused therein on bail, even though the recovery effected had been classified as commercial, primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged oner is covered by Dheeraj Shukla’s case (supra) also, the trial has been prolonged for reasons not attributable be admitted to bail. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer submissions made by the counsel opposite, has neither disputed the ody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the submissions made the stage of trial. Further, it has been asserted counsel that a specific secret information was received of the petitioner in drug trafficking, and on being nabbed, a recovery of 305 grams of heroin was made from the motorcycle, on which he was riding. On a pointed query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner never been booked in any case under the NDPS Act prior to the registration of the present FIR. However, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner was booked in a case under the Arms Act in the year 2022. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the nt material placed on record. The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2023 after he was allegedly found in possession of 305 grams of heroin. The challan in the present case was presented on 27.10.2023 followed by framing of charges on -2- accused therein on bail, even though the recovery effected had been classified as commercial, primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the urged that since the case of the Dheeraj Shukla’s case (supra) as in the present case also, the trial has been prolonged for reasons not attributable to him, the , learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer y the counsel opposite, has neither disputed the has he disputed the submissions made the stage of trial. Further, it has been asserted by the learned State was received qua the involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking, and on being nabbed, a recovery of 305 grams of heroin was made from the motorcycle, on which he was riding. On a pointed query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner has case under the NDPS Act prior to the registration of the present FIR. However, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner was booked in a case under the Arms Act in the year 2022. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2023 after he was allegedly found in possession of 305 grams of heroin. The challan in the present case was presented on 27.10.2023 followed by framing of charges on accused therein on bail, even though the recovery effected had been classified as commercial, primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the the case of the as in the present case the , learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer y the counsel opposite, has neither disputed the has he disputed the submissions made by the learned State the involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking, and on being nabbed, a recovery of 305 grams of heroin was made from the motorcycle, on which he was riding. On has case under the NDPS Act prior to the registration of the present FIR. However, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2023 after he was allegedly found in possession of 305 grams of heroin. The challan in the present case was presented on 27.10.2023 followed by framing of charges on Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-47029 20.11.2023. However, as on date, only 10 prosecution witnesses out of the 16 cited have been examined; the next 10.12.2023, when some of the remaining witnesses have been summoned. It has not been disputed that the trial has been delayed for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. in any other case under the NDPS Act 6. Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed bail on his Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek cancellation of bail to him. September 19 Jaspreet Kaur 47029-2024 20.11.2023. However, as on date, only 10 prosecution witnesses out of the 16 cited have been examined; the next date before the learned trial Co 10.12.2023, when some of the remaining witnesses have been summoned. It has not been disputed that the trial has been delayed for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner is also not stated to be inv in any other case under the NDPS Act. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner be admitt furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to seek cancellation of bail to him. September 19, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- 20.11.2023. However, as on date, only 10 prosecution witnesses out of the date before the learned trial Court is 10.12.2023, when some of the remaining witnesses have been summoned. It has not been disputed that the trial has been delayed for reasons not The petitioner is also not stated to be involved In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. and the petitioner be admitted to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 20.11.2023. However, as on date, only 10 prosecution witnesses out of the urt is 10.12.2023, when some of the remaining witnesses have been summoned. It has not been disputed that the trial has been delayed for reasons not olved this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. ed to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh