CRM-M-18567-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-18567-2026 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Date of uploading : 03.09.2026 KAWALJIT SINGH @KANWALJIT SINGH @AMARJIT SINGH ………….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0084 dated 11.06.2018 under Section 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “SHO, Police StationBhikhiwind, Jai Hind. Today I ASI along with HC Karam Singh 631, HC Charanjit Singh 284, PHG Hardeep Singh 4551 on private vehicle were on patrolling dutyand near the bridge drain at Bhikhiwind towards the palm garden side were going through footpath and when the police party reached at the link road village Kale then from the front one Sikh person was seen coming on foot from the village Kale Saaye who on seeing the police party thrown away one plastic bag black in colour which he was holding in his left hand in the bushes and thereafter immediately turned towards the left hand on pretext of urinatingset on the ground. That he was got apprehended with the help of other officials on the basis of suspicion and thereafter inquired about his name and address and he is disclosed his name as Kanwaljit Singh Son of JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18567-2026 -2- Bohad Singh Caste Majbi resident of Dhun PS Khalra. That since there was an apprehension that he is in possession of some intoxicants substance as such he was verbally asked that I am having suspicion that you are in possession of some intoxicants substance as such you are having a legal right of getting was search conducted either in the presence of some Magistrate or in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or from me and then he reposed confidence upon me. That he was inquired about the plastic bag thrown by him and then he stated that the same contains the medicine of his livestock. That he was asked to get it checked he himself with his own hands lifted the plastic bag and while handing over stated the same contains intoxicants tablets. That on checking of the same one packet of microlittablets on which 100 tablets are return and some loss tablets without make were got recovered. That on counting the same the total 200 tablets were recovered as such the total recovered tablets were found to be 300 numbers. That he could not produce any licence or bill regarding the recovery tablets. The private witness were tried to joined into the police party but everyone disclosedtheir constraints. That the recovered tablets were kept in the same plastic bag and thereafter in the plastic box and the same was got sealed by him with my stamp SK and the sample stamp was prepared separately and was taken into police custody vide separate memo. Stamp after use was handed over to HC Charanjit Singh 284. On that the separate report under Section 57 of NDPS Act will be prepared and will be sent to the Area Officer. Since accused Kanwaljit Singh son of Bohad Singh by keeping 300 intoxicants tablets in his possession has committed an offence under Secction 22/61/85 NDPS Act, thus after writing the ruqa the same is being sent to the police station for registration of case by hand PHG Hardeep Singh 4551. After registering the case, the FIR number be informed. The special reports be issued. I am busy in investigation at the spot. Today within the jurisdiction of Bhikhiwind at 06:00AM Sd/ Surinder Kumar PS Bhikhiwind date 11.06.2018.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2018. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 11 months. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man aged about 43 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18567-2026 -3- 5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2018 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 21.01.2019. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner was afforded the concession of interim bail on 16.07.2018 by the concerned trial Court, which continued in vogue till 24.04.2023, when the petitioner absented himself from the trial. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 14.01.2025 and was rearrested on 17.10.2025. Thus, it can be inferred that the petitioner has been in custody qua the FIR in question since 17.10.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the factum of the petitioner having been enlarged on bail on 16.07.2018, whereinafter the petitioner continued to appear before the concerned Court till April 2023, and the petitioner again being in custody since 17.10.2025; this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 27 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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 bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18567-2026 -4- 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; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. 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. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before 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 cell-phone 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. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the 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, shall be ratiocinated upon merits JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18567-2026 -5- thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.09.03 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document