Amrit Singh Alias Amar v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-2583-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2583-2025
Reserved on: 07.07.2025
Pronounced on: 17.07.2025 Amrit Singh alias Amar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 09.06.2024 Badhni Kalam, 21/27/61/85 of NDPS Act District Moga 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2.
Per paragraph 14 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 01.03.2025, the accused has the following criminal history:- Sr. no.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 09.03.2021 Bhawanigarh 302, 34 IPC 03.08.2024 Tallewal 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act 3.
The facts and allegations are taken from the reply dated 01.03.2025. 4.
On 09.06.2024, based on chance recovery, the investigator was able to recover 300 grams heroin from a car, in which petitioner and co-accused were present. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023.
5.
Petitioner's counsel made the following arguments:- i) That petitioner is a sole bread earner ii) That petitioner 's personal liberty should not be curtailed. iii) That there is no likely to be fleeing.
ANJU RANI 2025.07.18 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-2583-2025 6.
The petitioner's counsel further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 7.
The State's counsel opposes bail and submits that petitioner has criminal history of under Section 302 IPC and in the present case, recovery is from the car, in which petitioner and co-accused were travelling and quantity is commercial. 8.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"10. Role of the petitioner: On 09.06.2024 petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended red handed and from their possession 300 grams heroin was recovered."
REASONING:
9.
An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome. 10.
All the arguments made by the petitioner fails to satisfy the restrictions placed by the legislature under Section 37 of NDPS Act placing the burden on the accused. A perusal of the petition does not dispense with such arguments. Recovery is from the petitioner's possession being present in the car and no explanation has been given as such he is not entitled to bail on merits. Considering the bail on period of custody, present custody is approximately 01 year, which could not entitle him bail. 11.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
12.
The petitioner's custody of around 01 year cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense.
13.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 14.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 17.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2025.07.18 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh