Amandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 Date of decision : 10.02.2026 Date of uploading : 10.02.2026 Amandeep Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.51 dated 12.6.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and Sections 186/279/307/353/427 of IPC, at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
2.
The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 6 Kgs. of heroin and ₹8 lakhs and 2 motorcycles allegedly recovered from conscious possession of his co-accused namely Gujral Singh @ Jogga, on whose disclosure statement
CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. has further argued that the co-accused namely Gujral Singh @ Joga from whom the contraband is stated to have been recovered has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-62652-2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 2 years and 7 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.02.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 7.12.2023. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date.
CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -3- !" #
$ % & ' '
(
'' ' #'
)'#'
' # " #* # '
+ '
, ' '
# ) -
.
) ' & ) )
# ,
# ) /0 % , % ' %
- & ! % , 112 3 % - )
& /
, # 4 + ' % 5) - , + -%, 23 % # 6-,+7 + '
$
& & 8 & 0
67 !,! 6, 79 3 :) #%'
% / #
% '& 6, 7-6 7 ;
91
<
CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -4- =
! "" # ! #
$ %&'
'()#!*+(, ! % -% . " # - ('! $ % !$ - #$ ! # ! - # -' $'
'/ !'$ '0'
! ! '
- - 1- -% ! ## #$ ! "
# ! " ! !
'
2' %$" '
%! # '
$#!&'
- 3' " # % # -' ' 3 . #3'3 " % '3 ! ##- $ # 0'
- 3 4! # -% - ' $
% # ! ' $ $ % & '
# ! ! $ # ! ' 0' '3 ! ' # ! ! !"" # - ! 0'3" # 3' ! '$ -'
!'$ ' !!!"! 3$" '3 !'#! 3 !- .3!"! ## ! "# '!"! $$
#! 3##,"$#5$#! #
' ! ! "
# $ '
'
$ > 6.2 As per the custody certificate filed today, the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -5Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -69. Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 10.02.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No