IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 04.02.2025 SANDEEP SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Y.K. Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 27 dated 14.02.2022 under Section 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 25 and 29 of NDPS Act added later on ) at P.S. Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :-

‘SHO police station Sadar Fazilka, Jai Hind Me ASI along with SC Harjinderpal Singh NO 977/FZK, S/C Satnam Singh No 163/FZK PHG, Pritpal Singh 11271 on Government vehicle bearing no PB-05 R-9846 that was drove by SC HarjinderPal Singh. Regarding checking of suspicious persons and vehicles on patrolling in the area PS Sadar Fazilka. When during patrolling police party reached near village Banwala Hanwanta then secret informer came to me ASI and stopped the car gave information that Harpreet Singh s/o Puran Singh r/o Patre wala who is doing business of selling intoxicant tablets. Who today on his motorcycle No PB22-W-1141 Marka hero HF Deluxe standing 50 meters away from Shateer wala T-Point to Shateer wala village side and waiting for customers. If raid was conducted then this young man can be catch with intoxicant tablets. Information is believable. That Harpreet Singh s/o Puran Singh r/o Patrenwala has committed the offence u/s 22/61/85 of NDPS.’

3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the alleged recovery of 1500 Tramadol tablets were recovered from co-accused namely Harpreet Singh and the petitioner was even not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co- accused. He points out that the main accused from whom recovery was made has already been granted concession of bail. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby, he is not a habitual offender, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 months.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the recovery effected falls under the category of commercial quantity, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. Analysis Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 5 months, the main accused from whom the recovery has been effected has already been granted concession of bail by this Court, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 24.12.2024 charges are yet to be framed, out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or