Angrej Singh Alias Gora v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.11.2025 Angrej Singh @Gora ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :

Mr. Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act', hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act', and Sections 411 & 473 of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.164 dated 04.07.2018 has been lodged in Police Station Gate Hakima, District Amritsar. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner has been facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. During the course of trial, the petitioner

was afforded the benefit of bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar on 08.08.2018, and thereafter, the petitioner participated in the trial. The record further reveals that on 15.07.2022, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court, and therefore, his bail was cancelled, and bail bonds were forfeited to the State. As per record, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 22.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2025, and since then he is in custody. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5.

Heard.

6.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that due to misunderstanding, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial in the present case is taking place at a very slow pace, as no witness has been examined so far, and that prolonged incarceration of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner does not come within the ambit of commercial quantity.

7.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is a person, who has already misused the concession of bail, and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the same concession again. 8.

The record has been perused carefully.

9.

A perusal of record shows that earlier also the benefit of bail was afforded to the accused/petitioner, and thereafter for long time, he continued to be on bail, and participated in the trial. Now, the petitioner, after arrest, is in custody for a period of more than five and a half month, and the trial is not likely to be completed in near future. 10.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 11.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on fresh bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial;

and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

12.

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No