IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Rahul Kumar …Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jasinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.124 dated 23.07.2023 registered under Section 22 (Section 29 added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 23.07.2023, L/SI Ramandeep Kaur, along with other accompanying police officials, was proceeding towards Mohalla Rainka, Garhshankar. During patrol, the police party noticed one person approaching from the opposite direction carrying a polythene envelope in his right hand. Upon seeing the police, the said person attempted to turn back. Arousing suspicion, he was immediately apprehended and upon inquiry, disclosed his name as Rahul Kumar. A search was conducted and from the polythene bag in his possession, 22 intoxicant injections of Buprenorphine IP 0.3 mg/2 ml were recovered. The accused was thereafter taken into custody.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has remained in custody since 23.07.2023, having undergone an actual custody of more than 2 years and 4 months. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Out of the 10 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far, and the trial is progressing at a slow pace. Counsel further argues that the prosecution version is highly doubtful, particularly with respect to the mode and manner of the petitioner’s arrest. It is contended that contrary to the prosecution’s claim that the petitioner was apprehended while attempting to flee upon seeing the police, he was in fact taken into custody from his residence on 23.07.2023 at about 5:30 PM, which is corroborated by CCTV footage, photographs of which have been annexed with the present petition.

4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that 2 witnesses have already been examined, 02 witnesses have been given up. Hence, only 06 witnesses remain to be examined. He further contends that this is the third petition for grant of regular bail and that the recovered quantity weighs 44 grams of Buprenorphine which shall fall in the commercial category. He however does not dispute that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 02 years and 04 months in the present case and that he is not involved in any other criminal case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

5. Responding to the above, counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the second petition for grant of regular bail was dismissed

2025.12.05b 1y7: 3t8his court on 27.03.2025, however, thereafter despite the matter having been listed for as many as 07 occassions, no witness has been examined. Hence, the period of custody has exceeded beyond 02 years and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as noticed above; the period of actual custody undergone by the petitioner; the stage of the trial which is likely to take a long time to conclude coupled with the fact that the petitioner is 22 year old and has clean antecedents, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

8. The instant petition is allowed and th