Gurjant Singh Alias Janta v. State Of Punjab
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 16.03.2026 Gurjant Singh alias Janta . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. L.M. Gulati, 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 Gurjant Singh alias Janta 142 11.06.2022 22, 29, 27 of NDPS Act, 1985 (S. 27-A of NDPS Act deleted) Jandiala Amritsar Rural 2.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, on 01.12.2025, following was recorded:- "2.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations, from the possession of the petitioner, total 719 tablets of tramadol were recovered.
3.
Further submits that after registration of the FIR, petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2022, and after a period of about two months, i.e. on 10.08.2022, he was granted the concession of interim regular bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar, to await the FSL report. After receipt of the FSL report on 27.09.2024, petitioner was re-arrested on 13.02.2025.
4.
Counsel for the petitioner further contends that despite
- 2 - completion of investigation and submission of final report, till date, charges have not even been framed. Therefore, delay in conducting the trial, if any, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed 29.11.2025 custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record.
6.
Learned State Counsel submits that the recovered contraband contains Tramadol salt weighing 429 grams, which exceeds the prescribed limit of 100 grams for a non-commercial quantity. 7.
List again on 21.04.2026, for further consideration." 3.
Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that during the period the petitioner was on interim bail, he never misused the said concession. It is further submitted that out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined so far. Though the quantity recovered from the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity, petitioner has suffered incarceration inside jail for a period of more than 01 year and 02 months. He is a young person aged about 28 years and, except for the present case, has never been found involved in any other criminal case of any nature. Thus, in the given circumstances, and keeping in view his young age and the fact that he is a first-time offender, learned counsel submits that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to rehabilitate himself in society and lead a normal life.
4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 14.03.2026 in Court today, which are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. Copies thereof have been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.
5.
Learned State counsel while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, submits that keeping in view the nature of allegations and other
- 3 - circumstances, petitioner does not deserve any leniency. However, learned State counsel candidly admits that as per custody certificate, petitioner is not found indulged in any other similar activity under the NDPS Act. Besides, other factual assertions, as noticed here-above, have also not been disputed by learned State counsel. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.
7.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of interim regular bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar and during the said period he never misused the concession so granted to him. It is further not disputed that though the investigation stands completed and the final report has already been presented, yet the charges have not been framed so far and out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined till date. As per custody certificate, petitioner is suffered total incarceration period inside jail for 01 year, 02 months and 29 days, till 14.03.2026, after his re-arrest and it has also not been disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is a young person aged about 28 years and appears to be a first-time offender, thus, this Court deems it appropriate to afford him an opportunity for rehabilitation in society and to join the normal course of life.
8.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
- 4 - bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
10.
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 expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 11.
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.
12.
Petition stands disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 16, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No