Nazar Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.12.2025 Nazar Singh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) 1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, and 27-A of the 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985', hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act', the FIR No.149 dated 18.08.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana. 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 on 18.08.2025. As per prosecution on that day ASI Jagtar Singh was heading a police team deputed at T-point Village Adiana

Machhiwara, when he spotted a black colour Fortuner car coming from Village Kuhara side. According to above-named police officer, signal was given to the abovementioned car to stop, but the moment the occupants of the car spotted the police party on their way ahead they abruptly tried to take a U-turn, but the car was intercepted by the police, and its occupants were apprehended.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of suspicion, when the search of the persons of occupants of the abovementioned car was conducted, it was found that one of the occupant of the car, namely Lakhwinder Singh, was in possession of 44 gms of heroin, and the another one, Nazar Singh (petitioner herein), was in possession of 06 gms of heroin. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondentState, and waives service. The learned State Counsel has already filed custody certificate of the petitioner. However, no formal reply has been filed by the State and the learned State counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition.

6.

Heard.

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, for arriving at any decision with regard to present petition: - i) that the quantity of recovered contraband, from the possession of petitioner, is non-commercial quantity, which is marginally above the upper threshold meant for small quantity, and only a friction of lowest limit meant for commercial quantity; ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 03 months;

iii) that as per custody certificate, petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v) that detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 9.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant, wherein it has been 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.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

12.

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", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 13.

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, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

14.

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 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.

15.

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 02.12.2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No