Raman Kumar v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.11.2025 RAMAN KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

(Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 50 dated 26.09.2019, registered under Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala.

2.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 26.09.2019, the petitioner was apprehended on the basis of a secret information and was found in conscious possession of 100 intoxicant injections without having any permit or licence for the same. He was formally arrested. He was subsequently granted benefit of bail. He absented himself on 31.05.2022. His bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. Proclamation proceedings were initiated against him and he was declared a

-2proclaimed person vide order dated 16.03.2024 as passed by the trial Court. He was arrested again and is in custody since 25.03.2024. Prayer made by him for grant of regular bail, had been declined by learned trial Court vide order dated 22.07.2025.

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4.

Status report along with the custody certificate has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. 6.

A perusal of the custody certificate shows that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. In view of the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other

-3subsequent case.

7.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

19.11.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) shruti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No