IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.03.2026 Parmjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, 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.70 dated 16.04.2025, registered under Sections 21(c), 61, 85 of NDPS Act and Section 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 10 months and 15 days. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused Gagandeep, from whom alleged recovery of 2 kgs of heroin has been effected. He alleges false implication in the case. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Charges have been framed on 22.12.2025 and out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. He is involved in 03 more cases wherein also no recovery was effected and he was implicated on the basis of disclosure statement, wherein he is on bail. 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 09.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 10 months and 15 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named by his co-accused in his disclosure statement. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

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.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 10 months and 15 days; on bail in other cases; charges were framed on 22.12.2025; out total of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has 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 shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be do