##PAGE1##

CRM-M-15044-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 CRM-M-15044-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.03.2026

Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky Varlad ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 27.04.2025, registered under Sections 18 of NDPS Act, Section 52-A of Prisons Act (Sections 21, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act, Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 111(2) BNS added later on), at Police

Station City-1, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3 months and 9 days. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Gurinder and Lovejeet who were implicated based on the statement of co-accused Parshant Majumdar who has been granted bail vide order dated 03.12.2025, Annexure P3. He was in custody when he came to be involved in the present case. As per the allegations, he along with other co-accused had delivered the mobile phone to jail inmates, one

ASHOK KUMAR

2026.03.24 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15044-2026 (O&M) 2

of whom Sultan Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 25.02.2026, Annexure P12 and recovery of SIM Card was effected. Besides the above co- accused ASI Ashok Kumar, Gurchet Singh, Banso Bai and Gurpreet Singh, who is DSP have been granted bail. Charges have been framed on 12.12.2025 and only 1, out of 46 PWs, has been examined. He is involved in 9 more cases and in custody only in one of which. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State

of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3. The custody certificate dated 23.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3

months and 9 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by his co-accused of having supplied mobile phone to the jail inmates. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage and co-accused having been enlarged on

bail.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are

ASHOK KUMAR

2026.03.24 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15044-2026 (O&M) 3

several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves

cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 months and 9 days; co-accused are on bail; charges were framed on 12.12.2025 and out of 46 PWs, only 1, has yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and