CRM-M-30099-2026 1 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30099-2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 YOGESH KUMAR ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 11 dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P/1), initially registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala. During the course of investigation, Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was also added. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that on 21.01.2026, SI Jaswinder Singh along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand Sanauri, Patiala, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspicious persons. During this time, a secret informer disclosed that the petitioner Yogesh Kumar was allegedly carrying an illegal weapon and was involved in supplying illegal weapons at the instance of his associate namely Munish @ Munshi, who was already lodged in Central Jail, Patiala in another case under the NDPS Act. On the basis of the said information, the police proceeded to conduct a raid and a ruqa was sent to Police Station Kotwali Patiala for KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30099-2026 2 registration of the case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act. Hence, the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no legally admissible evidence connecting him with the alleged offences. It is contended that the FIR was initially registered under the Arms Act and Section 22 of the NDPS Act was subsequently added only on the basis of the alleged recovery from co- accused Manish @ Munshi, who was already in custody in another NDPS case. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that no contraband has ever been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the alleged recovery of weapon has already been effected. It is argued that the petitioner is not required for any further investigation, interrogation or recovery purposes. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence against the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner and the allegations against him are based on suspicion alone. 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026, the investigation stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. It is argued that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing or threatening any witness. The trial is likely to take considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a young KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30099-2026 3 person aged about 21 years and has clean antecedents except the present case. It is contended that continued incarceration may adversely affect his future and that the settled principle of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 05 months and 21 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner was involved in keeping and supplying illegal weapons and was allegedly acting at the instance of co-accused Munish @ Munshi, who was already lodged in Central Jail, Patiala in another case under the NDPS Act. 6.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was allegedly facilitating the illegal activities of the said co-accused and was supplying illegal weapons as per his directions. It is argued that the petitioner was apprehended on the basis of specific secret information while he was present near Ghalori Gate Madiyan, Patiala, and was allegedly waiting for someone. The seriousness of the allegations and the nature of offence, therefore, do not entitle the petitioner to the concession of regular bail at this stage. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30099-2026 4 7. Be that as it may, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is a young person aged about 21 years. It is not disputed that the alleged recovery of the narcotic substance, as relied upon by the prosecution, has not been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the alleged recovery is attributed to the co- accused. It is further taken into consideration that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026, the investigation stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is no longer required for any further custodial interrogation or recovery purposes. The material on record, including the allegations regarding the involvement of the petitioner, would be tested during the course of trial. It is also relevant to note that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as the evidence is yet to be recorded. Keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any fruitful purpose. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30099-2026 5 purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30099-2026 6 Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 16.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.17 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh