Nilesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab




   
   

  !"#"$%&''

 



   !"

#

$  %  ()*' *
 *+

, # $ % %&'($& ) #

 %$# *'((%' !" +++  *+-'.

)/

 ,-  &     #   #

  $  )

 .  , '

#

' ))$ )" */0

 1$$

 

*$ * ' ) 

)# "2 .2  3()  )

% '3) '#-$ *  "

 &  )* *  $ ) 

) $"

)$  " 56 "


   

       



 ! "! # $
%#&# 



  ' # !( )%  %# 

%) (

  

 (  # 

*+  (

 #      !

!

      (  (



    (  ##)

  *    "   &$  "-  #

'  5 $$"-7$8$*'#)
' &$ $$$  



(**&$ 5)'# #

"  $  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.9 - 5

$$ "-# )The very fact that the police team arrested the petitioner from a public place for allegedly keeping in his illegal possession contraband/prohibited drugs, but did not make any effort to involve any independent witness as a 'witness' to the case proceedings raises serious doubt on the genuineness of the story put-forth by them. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner, who has been in custody since 20.05.2025  $5 # )$ ) :" *

& &$  -) );'$&  &5 "4   & # "- ) #

   '9 

 * &*

) #') " # $')* &"  $"

# )

5 &" < $='

 ))  "

&':;  ))

5 $

& -  ##  $5 $ "& & / $ ** $ $()





0 $-5"

'

#-  5 *#

" $ 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while filing the custody certificate of the petitioner, has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that the police team caught the petitioner red handed while keeping in his illegal possession 01 Kg. 400 grams 'Opium'. Learned State counsel fairly admits that contraband recovered in the present case falls within the 'Intermediate Quantity', but opposes the request on the ground that if granted the concession of bail, the likelihood of petitioner indulging in similar offence and fleeing from process of justice by not appearing in the Court cannot be ruled out. 3* )" *

 $ "$5)-

 7 $)  $# )$  #

 9)   0&$ $)  # $&*

 *$ ) 

) $  >hether statutory procedures were complied with or not is a question which would be decided during the course of trial based on the evidence adduced on the case file. It has been noticed that # )$ 

#

) :" *

 & &$  -) ); > ##)$ *  )&" " *

) $'
  #



 ## 5 $"&$ "- $ 

#

''5 # #)  " *)

)$$   '5 $"& & * $ ()





0 $' )$ ** #$- $ $'' "* # )# ,-  !

%     . /$"-?

@"#
 
  

              In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground that he had been in custody for a long period and the possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future was remote. Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- 012   

  %(% #

 3% 

  

  3% 012  ( # ( 

%!   012  (

%

4#  

%(

012  ( 

    3%

  

.

%

 .

#

   

3% 01 2   ##  #    (   %

##

(  %  

 012          % 

 #

   )% 

(    



 

%

#4 #   ! %   3%    # ( 

 #   012    #  # %

   012   % 

#  %#  2 3%(  !



#  % 



  

    

 !





 

#   (#  



2 3% !



#  0.12  3%4 %5 !  # #

  

#

 (

!   . ()) $ *-'# #

 5$ $$)  ) -")  $)

$

'" "- 4) )

"* $ #

"- $ &5 "

&') $ "&

$  $ ##  # # )$ * $5 $

" )

$ #

 ) $5 $# )$ $# $ -  $ "&

 . *+/ &''     

 %# >#4 *2

$ 6A2

># " 6A2