Rinku Alias Rinku Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 217-1 CRM-M-41298-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2025 RINKU @ RINKU SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of -1Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.145 dated 19.07.2023 under Sections 15, 25 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently) registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused namely Ganesh was apprehended with 110 kgs of poppy husk while driving Scooter of make Activa. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already undergone custody period of more than 02 years and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. He further states that he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of custody certificate vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute Sonia Puri 2025.08.19 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

the fact that the petitioner has undergone custody period of 02 years and 26 -2days and out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, however, 06 witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that as of date, the custody period undergone by the petitioner is 02 years and 26 days; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none been examined so far; also conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

11.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 18th August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.19 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document