Ajay Kochhar v. State Of Punjab
The present petition has been n filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 202 23 for the grant of regular bail l to the petitioner in case FIR No.154 dat ted 10.07.2025, registered unde er Sections 22, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act t & 223 BNS (Section 188 IPC), at Police Station City Phagwara, D District Kapurthala.
2.
Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for r about 6 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced ba ased on disclosure statement o f co-accused Pardeep Kumar, who was in dicted on the said statement and d has since been granted regular bail vide o order, Annexure P-5, so has c co-accused Vishal Sharma on 14.01.2026, , Annexure P-4. There is no o recovery effected from the
petitioner and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021(1) RCR (Crl.) 1. Charges have been framed on 12.01.2026, however none out of 17 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 1 more case under the NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3.
The custody certificate dated 22.04.2026 has been filed by learned State counsel, as per which the petitioner is behind bars for the last 5 months and 29 days.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner by the co-accused and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the present case. He is, however, unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial; the petitioner being on bail in another case and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail.
5.
Heard.
6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 months and 29 days; on bail in another case; co-accused are on bail; prosecution evidence has to commence; in all there are 17 PWs; trial is likely to take a considerable time and thus his further
incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 7.
As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
8.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.