Charanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 Charanjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral) 1.

The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 156 dated 10.06.2025, registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force (ANTF), SAS Nagar, Mohali. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 2.

The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid FIR and facing trial therein on the allegations that on 10.06.2025, the petitioner along with coaccused Gurjant Singh @ Jatta was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 367 grams of heroin was effected from a polythene, which was kept by the coaccused in the pocket of his pajama. Both of them were formally arrested. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

-23.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery was effected from his personal search. The alleged recovery of contraband was in fact effected from the coaccused. The petitioner was simply travelling with him and was not aware about his possessions. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. He has been in custody since long. He is seriously ill and not maintaining sound health. On medical grounds also, he deserves to be released on bail. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time as none out of total 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

Reply along with the medical status report and custody certificate has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from him, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to be found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. It is an admitted fact that no recovery was effected from the personal search of the petitioner and the recovery so effected was from the co-accused. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of similar nature. On a perusal of the medical status report of the petitioner, it is revealed that he is suffering from

-3multiple chronic and serious medical conditions, including Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection and is on antiretroviral therapy. He is also suffering from Hepatitis C. He also has a history of Deep Vein Thrombosis, causing persistent bilateral lower limb pain and numbness. In addition, he is suffering from advanced Hemorrhoids (Grade III) with recurrent bleeding per rectum and prolapse, along with severe anaemia and generalized weakness. His condition is further complicated by recurrent infections, including ear discharge and non-healing wounds, requiring continuous medical supervision and repeated specialized treatment. A perusal of the record further reveals that investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would obviously take time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far.

Keeping in view the medical condition of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that he needs specialized medical as well as personal care for his wellbeing, which is not possible in custody. Hence, in these peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 17.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R.

R.

R.

R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No