Bharpur Singh @ Bhura v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 BHARPUR SINGH @ BHURA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Robindeep Singh Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of Regular Bail in case arising out of FIR no.11 dated 01.03.2025 under Sections 21,22,27-B of NDPS Act and 111 (2) of BNS registered at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was apprehended and 20 intoxicating tablets and 10 gram of heroin were recovered from the polythene thrown by him.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner falls within the ambit of a non-commercial quantity, and therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2025.

-24.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 02 months and 21 days. It has further been stated that the petitioner is involved in 11 more cases so he is not entitled for concession of regular bail.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 02 months and 21 days coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

-310.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 25.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No