High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41963/2025allowed

Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-09-04Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel9 pages

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision : 4.9.2025 Gurpreet Singh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.73 dated 18.6.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 5500 intoxicant pills of tramadol hydrochloride IP 100 mg SR from a swift car bearing No.HR-66A-8458, of which, the petitioner and other co-accused were the occupants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -2in custody since 18.6.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge thereof. Learned counsel has iterated that, in any case, the prosecution evidence is at the fag end, and thus, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the trial. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.9.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 18.6.2023 whereinafter,

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -3investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 16.10.2023. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 7 have been examined and 6 have been given up till date. There is yet another aspect, nay vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence is at the fag end as only 2 prosecution witnesses are stated to have remained to be examined. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of about 10 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-23322023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

"10.

As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -4II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for nonprosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).

V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

! "#$$ "

%& '( " )

$ %&

#$$ %&%

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -5-

(

)

' ($ (

+ , %

")* + (

# #

' &! ,'-./ -../

* + ,

+& -

. / (( 01232 (

- +45#- 2 . ,

, ! "#$$ "

& '6

$ 7-

$ 8 ( $ - - 9 !

&% ' -

% 6 3 ( 3-4:!

&&' -

6;( < 4-:( -= .!+'3 3

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -6- !

' .&.6 = = > $ ( - !4 , 5' + 24- +

6 4. 0

) 9 - ( ,-? 9 *6 )4 : > 9 ( , - ? 9 * - @(!

'4 + A % )= - $ -: ( , - <

*6 4

& % <8 # > < ( B 2 :

( - =# .!.'3 3!

' 6 " )12

, % "

(

* *

)

(

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -7-

(

!04

(

5)&, .627 /

( % *

$1 5)&, .627

8 *

$1 5)&, .627

$< + %

$1 5)&, .627% *"

(

$1 5)&, .627

(

$1 5)&, .627* Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -8ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M) -98. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

11.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 4.9.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No