Nitin Aggarwal v. State Of Punjab
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS for grant o of regular bail to the petition ner in case FIR No.70 dated 11.04.2025, , registered at Police Station Ca anal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda, u under Section 22(c ) NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 223 of BNS, 2023 (Secti on 29 NDPS Act added later on) ).
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 m months and 18 days. His name e surfaced based on disclosure statement o of co-accused Amit Mittal @ Happy. There is no recovery effected fro om the petitioner and no evidenc ce has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid d disclosure statement, which is inadmissibl e in the eyes of law as per the ju udgment passed by Hon'ble the Court in the case of Tofan Sing gh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme C 2021 (1) R CR (Crl.) 1. Charges stand fra amed on 15.10.2025, however,
none out of 11 PWs has been examined. He is involved in one more case wherein also, he was implicated on the disclosure statement of co-accused and granted interim bail on 13.08.2020, which was confirmed vide order dated 14.12.2020, Annexure P-4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by his coaccused. He is, however, unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in other case. 4.
Heard.
5.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 months and 18 days; on bail in other case; charges were framed on 15.10.2025, but out of 11, none has been examined as yet; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any
useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
7.
As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
8.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.