Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

• The court exercised jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail in a case involving FIR No.76 under the NDPS Act, which pertains to alleged possession and sale of narcotic pills (!) (!) .

• The FIR detailed that the petitioner was apprehended based on secret information indicating involvement in drug trafficking, with specific circumstances of the search and seizure described (!) (!) .

• The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, and his search was conducted without the presence of a Gazetted Officer or independent witness. He has undergone over two years of actual custody and is involved in another case, where he is on bail (!) (!) .

• The prosecution highlighted that charges had been framed, and several witnesses had been examined, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the constraints imposed by the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37 (!) (!) .

• The court recognized that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period, and continued detention would not serve any purpose, especially considering the conditions of detention and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 (!) (!) .

• The court noted that the fact of involvement in other cases should not automatically disqualify the petitioner from bail, citing relevant legal principles that focus on the circumstances and role of the accused rather than mere criminal antecedents (!) (!) .

• The court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial and observed that unnecessary incarceration could violate this right (!) .

• The bail was granted on the petitioner’s furnishing of adequate surety bonds, with specific conditions to ensure the integrity of the trial process, including non-tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, appearing before the court as scheduled, and refraining from committing similar offenses or influencing witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

• It was clarified that breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation, and the observations made should not be construed as a final opinion on the case's merits, leaving the trial to proceed independently (!) (!) .

• Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly (!) .

Let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal analysis.

JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.76 dated 02.07.2022, under Sections 22 , 61 and 85 of NDPS Act , 1985, registered at Police Station Ghanour, Distt. Patiala.

2. The relevant part of the FIR is reproduced below:-

"Copy of Original Rukka, SHO PS Ghanaur, Jai Hind today I ASI along with PHG Nachhatar Singh 30111, PHG Holi Ram 30780 in private vehicle with laptop printer were on patrolling at Seal Ghanoor Road near village Baghora at about 11 AM. Then the secret informer informed in that Kuldeep Singh son of Angrej Singh, resident of Baghora police station Ghanoor, aged about 30 years, body thin and agile, and tied yellow parna, had used to brought intoxicant pills from outside the state and sold them in Punjab, w