Rajinder Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition f filed under Section 483 BNSS is for gran nt of regular bail to the petitio oner in case FIR No.55 dated 14.05.2024, , registered under Section 22 NDPS Act, at Police Station Bhogpur, D District Jalandhar Rural.

2.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for 1 years and about 7 months. He e alleges false implication. The mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS S Act have not been complied with. No ind dependent witness has been join ned at the time of recovery. The alleged reco overy of 22 loose tablets of E Etizolam effected from him is marginally above the non-commercial quan ntity, it being 2.7 grams. Coaccused, na amely, Davinder Singh @ Happ py from whom 2.548 grams of aforesaid sa alt was recovered, has since be een granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2025, Annexure P- -3, after being in custody of 1

year, 5 months and 28 days. Charges have been framed on 14.08.2024, however, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 04.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 6 months and 19 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being not involved in any other case and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 6 months and 19 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused is on bail; charges stand framed on 14.08.2024 and only 1 out of 15 PWs has been examined so far; the trial is likely to take a considerable time and 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 prosecution 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.