IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 27.10.2025 Hakam Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ` ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. H.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhund, DAG Punjab ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner-Hakam Singh has filed instant third petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 059 dated 13.07.2022 registered under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana.

2. Earlier two bail petitions i.e. CRM-M-57213-2023 and CRM-M- 31438-2024 were dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that lastly when the prayer for bail application was dismissed on 16.09.2024 only one prosecution witness had been examined out of total 15 prosecution witnesses and the position is not much indifferent even today because despite of passing of more than a period of one year, total 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 15 prosecution witnesses.

3. The said fact is not disputed by learned State counsel also. Hence, this Court would not hesitate in entertaining the instant petition again on merits.

4. As per allegations, petitioner-Hakam Singh was apprehended while driving truck bearing registration No. PB-10-FV-3435 and on effecting search by the police party based upon the secret information, recovery of 06 quintals of poppy husk was effected from truck, however, there is no explanation given by learned DAG Punjab from which part of the truck recovery of 06 quintals of poppy husk was effected.

5. Counsel argues that infact FIR has been registered only on the basis of secret information, without even compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, prior in time. Registration of FIR without actual recovery of the contraband creates a big doubt in the story of the prosecution because the proceedings are being conducted anti-timed, by planting the recovery of poppy husk from the truck driven by the petitioner.

Counsel also argues that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Baldev Singh (owner of the truck) and Johal Singh (son of Baldev Singh) have already been granted the concession of regular bail. Counsel submits that the only defence is that at the time of recovery of alleged contraband, the petitioner was driving the truck in question, whereas the other co-accused Baldev Singh and Johal Singh were not present at the relevant time. Without arguing much on merits, counsel also argues that there are total 15 prosecution witnesses and only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined uptill now. Thus, already sufficient incarceration period of 03 years, 03 months and 11 days has been suffered by the petitioner and he can not be detained for indefinite period, unless charges are not proved beyond doubt.

6. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the bail applications of the petitioner have been dismissed twice, however, he does not deny that for the last more than a period of 13 months, only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined despite acknowledging the fact that the petitioner is lying inside jail and it is heavily upon the prosecution to prove the charges against the petitioner.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Primarily for the reason of delayed trial and total incarceration period 03 years 03 months and 11 days uptill now and also the fact that the petitioner who is of 37 years of age was never found indulged in any other similar act punishable under the NDPS Act, prayer for bail seems to be justified.

8. In view of the entirety of circumstances, noticing the age of the petitioner and that no other criminal case is