IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-73776-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 Navkiran Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 53 dated 29.03.2024, registered under Sections 21-C of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station special task force, District STF Wing, SAS Nagar.

2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the supply of heroin in various areas of Amritsar and was present near the turn of Pritam Enclave, opposite Rian International School, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The secret informer also disclosed the description of the outfit worn by the petitioner at that time. Acting upon the said information, the police party conducted a raid at the disclosed place and apprehended the petitioner. It is alleged that a polythene bag wrapped in a peach-coloured cloth, which the petitioner was carrying in his hand, was searched and heroin weighing 650 grams was recovered therefrom. On the basis of the said recovery, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and out of the total 13 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that the earlier bail petitions bearing CRM-M-11995 of 2025 and CRM-M-39583-2025 was withdrawn on 08.04.2025 and 05.08.2025, respectively and the petitioner is approaching this Court again after a considerable period of custody. Learned counsel argues that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take long to conclude.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. However, the custody certificate filed by the State has been taken on record, which indicates that the petitioner has undergone 01 year, 11 months and 07 days in custody. It is also not disputed that out of the 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2024. The trial is at an initial stage and out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period, when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, would not serve any useful purpose.

6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in another case of similar nature, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is repr