The grant of bail is the general rule of criminal jurisprudence, and detention is an exception; the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and criminal antecedents of an accused do not per se justify the denial of bail.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No. 170 dated 01.09.2025 under Sections 21-B , 27-A of the NDPS Act ( Sections 21-C , 25, 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 25 of the Arms Act added later on) registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar (P-1).

2. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that he was formally arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Vishal Singh, while he was already in judicial custody in another FIR No. 23/2026 registered

under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. It is further argued that the entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, there being no independent corroborative evidence, recovery, witness, or any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the recovery in the present case has been effected from co-accused, namely Gaurav Singh, from whom 30 grams of heroin along with alleged drug money amounting to Rs. 1,700/- was recovered. Subsequently, 400 grams of heroin was recovered from another co-accused, namely Vishal Singh, and 300 grams of heroin along with one .30 bore pistol was allegedly recovered from co-accused Pranshu. It is further stated that the investigation in the present case stands concluded and the challan has been presented on 27.03.2026. Learned counsel further submits that a similarly situated co-accused, namely Jagroop Singh @ Jagga, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-4904-2026 arising out of the same FIR, therefore on the principle of parity, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in other FIR also but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Analysis

From the above discussion, it emerges that the petitioner has already undergone sufficient incarceration. A similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court. Further, as per the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, since the challan has been presented on 27.03.2026, it is evident that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, continued detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose.

As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner therein is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as “ Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab ” decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the sa