Vinod Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 20th, 2025 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Navdeep, Advocate and Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.19 dated 09.02.2024 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station STF, Sector-79, S.A.S. Nagar.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been now languishing in custody since 09.02.2024 with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, which further lends credence to his false implication at the hands of the police. A prayer has, therefore, been made for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

-23.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that a specific secret information was received qua the involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking. Pursuant to the secret information received, when the petitioner was apprehended by the police, a huge recovery of 1100 tablets of Clovidol (commercial quantity) was made from him after due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned State counsel that the trial has been proceeding at a very good pace as only one prosecution witness out of the 14 remaining to be examined. Learned State counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant petition as there could be a possibility of the petitioner absconding and consequently delaying the conclusion of the trial.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

5.

The petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2024 after he was allegedly apprehended at the spot with a huge contraband (1100 tablets of Clovidol) classified as commercial under the NDPS Act. The trial, in all likelihood, would be concluding very shortly since only one prosecution witness remain to be examined. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was specifically named in the secret information and it was pursuant to the said information that he was nabbed by the police party leading to the

-3aforesaid recovery.

6.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the stage of trial and the recovery effected, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

August 20th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No