Jobanpreet Singh Alias Joban v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 17.10.2025 Pronounced on : 30.10.2025 Jobanpreet Singh @Joban ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. (joined through hybrid mode) Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act' only, the FIR No.115 dated 04.08.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural. 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 FIR of this case came into being when a police party headed by SI Trilok Singh

intercepted two boys on the basis of suspicion. According to prosecution story, the abovesaid persons disclosed their names as Jobanpreet Singh @Joban (petitioner) and Harman Singh @Hammu, and when search of their persons was conducted, from the possession of Jobanpreet Singh @Joban (petitioner), 10 grms of heroin was recovered, whereas from the polythene bag thrown by co-accused Harman Singh @Hammu, another 10 gms of heroin was recovered.

3.

It has been further alleged by the prosecution that during the search of person of accused Jobanpreet Singh @Joban (petitioner), currency notes of Rs.200/- and from the possession of accused Harman Singh @Hammu, currency notes of Rs.100/- were recovered. As per prosecution, the accused had disclosed that the abovesaid amount was procured by them by sale of heroin. According to prosecution, once the abovementioned contraband was recovered, necessary formalities with regard to search, seizure, registration of FIR and arrest of accused were undertaken, and the investigation was initiated.

4.

Heard.

5.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein despite opportunity the Investigating Officer has failed to join any independent witness, and that there is a violation of mandatory provisions, contained under Section 50 of NDPS Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovered contraband comes within the ambit of intermediate quantity, and that the cash amount, recovered from the

possession of accused, is too small to convince a prudent mind, that it was procured by sale of drugs.

6.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner is much above the small quantity, and that in the given fact situation, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, before arriving at any decision with regard to present petition for bail: - i) that the contraband, recovered from the possession of petitioner, comes is the intermediate quantity, which is just above the maximum threshold meant for small quantity, and only a friction of lower limit meant for commercial quantity; ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of 03 months;

iii) that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; iv) that the quantum of recovered money is too small to believe that it was procured by sale of heroin;

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses.

9.

With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, it is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, has observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.

Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country.

Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

10.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and Another', are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice". 11.

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024. 12.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail. 13.

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 bail on furnishing his personal bonds and surety bonds 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 disposal of the case;

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

14.

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 OCTOBER 30, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No