Jashanpreet Singh Alias Bhola v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63363-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.03.2026 Jashanpreet Singh @ Bhola ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Kanwar Arun Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0107 dated 08.07.2025, registered under Sections 21, 27(a) of NDPS Act (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Machhiwara, Khanna, District Ludhiana. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 8 months and 5 days. The alleged recovery from the petitioner is 6 grams of heroin and that from his co-accused Deepak @ Deep was of 30 grams who has been granted bail vide order dated 09.10.2025, Annexure P4, after being in custody for 2 months and 19 days. No independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery. Charges have been framed on 18.10.2025 and none, out of 8 PWs, has been examined. He is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 16.03.2026, filed by the learned State

-2counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 8 months and 5 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that small quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner along with Rs.97,000/- in cash and is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, petitioner being on bail in another case and co-accused having been enlarged on bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

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." 7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 8 months and 5 days; on bail in another case; co-accused is on bail; charges were framed on 18.10.2025 and out of 8 PWs, none has yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the

-3prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9.

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.

10.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) 17.03.2026 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No