Jugraj Singh Alias Juvraj Singh v. State Of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition n filed under Section 483 of BNSS is fo or grant of regular bail to the p petitioner in case FIR No.235 dated 22.10 0.2024, registered under Section ns 21 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Stati on Sadar Amritsar, Police Comm missionerate, District Amritsar.

2.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 2 months. He e alleges false implication. The alleged reco overy of contraband is stated to o have been effected from the person of c co-accused, Samir Singh and no t him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner w was not present at the spot, b but having been picked up at midnight fr rom his house on the pretext of f some investigation and later came to be implicated in the present case.

. Similarly circumstanced co-

accused, namely, Arshdeep Singh alias Garry and Avtar Singh have since been granted bail, vide orders dated 15.10.2025 and 11.11.2025, Annexures P-4 and P-5, after being in custody of 11 months and 23 days and 1 year and 20 days respectively. Charges have been framed on 04.09.2025, however, none out of 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined. He is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 05.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 1 month and 10 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner was specifically named in the secret information and apprehended along with the co-accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband, it being 516 grams of heroin, has been recovered. 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 coaccused having been released on bail. 5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 1 month and 10 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused are on bail; charges stand framed on 04.09.2025, but out of 13 PWs, none 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.

7.

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.

8.

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. 9.

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.