218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 VIJAYPAL SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.178 dated 23.06.2023, under Section 15(C)/27/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, Bathinda Range, District Bathinda.

2. The facts of the present case are that on 23.06.2023, the police party headed by ASI Kulbir Singh were present at Malout, where he received a phone call from ASI Gurmeet Singh that he had stopped a Truck and a car and he had suspicion that there may be some intoxicant substance in the said Truck and Car. Investigating Officer alongwith police party reached at the spot and on checking the car, 4 bags containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk in each were recovered. On checking the Truck, 5 bags containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk in each were recovered. The person standing by the side of car disclosed his name as Parminder Singh and the persons standing near the truck disclosed their names as Vijay Pal (petitioner herein) and Ramesh Kumar. Thus, total 180 Kgs poppy husk was recovered from the aforesaid accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in judicial custody since 23.06.2023 and has undergone more than 01 year and 10 months of custody and till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined out of total 30 PWs. As such case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023.

4. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that 180 kg of poppy husk was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. As such, he is not entitled to grant of regular bail by this Court. However, he could not controvert the fact that out of total 30 prosecution witnesses, not even a single PW has been examined till date and the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 10 months and 15 days.

5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Ku- mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prison- ers, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registra- tion of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inher-

ited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure result- ing in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 01 year 10 months and 15 days as on 11.05.2025. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial