SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 4th time under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Earlier 439 CrPC) for the grant of Regular Bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 252 dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered with Police Station Civil Lines Batala District Gurdaspur under Section 21 and 61 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and offence under Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 added later on, in the interest of justice and fair play.

2. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure/confessional statement of co-accused Vikas, from whom 60 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered. He further submits that co-accused Vikas has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court below vide order dated 07.04.2025. It is further contended that the recovery of 60 grams of heroin falls within the non-commercial quantity category.

On behalf of the State

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 8 months and 12 days,

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 cases of similar nature.

3. Analysis

Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1 year, 8 months and 12 days and recovery of contraband i.e., 60 grams heroin is non-commercial in nature and the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented and after framing of charges on 19.05.2025 out of total 17 prosecution witnesses only two have been examined so far, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need