Karan Singh v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.04.2026 Karan Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Karan Singh 23.01.2026 21-B/27A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 A Division Amritsar 2.

When petitioner Karan Singh, aged about 19 years and his coaccused - Damanpreet Singh, were together on one Activa scooter bearing registration No. PB02-EW-8518, and on being intercepted by the police team search was effected, and thereupon, from a polythene bag thrown by the co-accused after taking it out from the right pocket of his jacket, 09 grams of heroin was recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a

- 2 - pillion rider and no narcotic contraband was recovered from his possession, except currency amounting to Rs.800/-, alleged as drug money from his pocket. Petitioner is a young boy of the age of 19 years and is never found indulged in any other case till date.

Further submits that quantity recovered from the co-accused is also non-commercial quantity and only marginally above small quantity, as 09 grams of heroin was recovered from the co-accused. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 16.04.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

5.

While opposing the prayer for bail, learned State counsel submits that keeping in view the recovery of narcotic contraband, petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. However, on being asked by the Court, he fairly concedes that except the present case, petitioner is not found involved in any other similar activity. It is also admitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 02 months and 21 days, and till date, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the petitioner is stated to have been accompanying the co-accused at the relevant time as a pillion rider on the vehicle in question. The alleged recovery of 09 grams of heroin has been effected from the co-accused and no narcotic contraband has been recovered from the possession of the

- 3 - present petitioner, except an amount of Rs.800/-, alleged to be drug money. Whether petitioner had any conscious knowledge, participation, or nexus with the alleged recovery is a matter which would be required to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial on the basis of cogent evidence.

It is also not disputed by learned State counsel that, except the present case, petitioner is not involved in any other similar activity. Petitioner is a young boy and has suffered incarceration inside the jail for 02 months and 21 days. It has further been conceded that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the young age of the petitioner; absence of criminal antecedents; the fact that no recovery has been effected from his possession; and the stage of trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would not serve any useful purpose. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is

- 4 - expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

10.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 17, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No