CRM-M/18637/2026 of BHARATPREET SINGH @BHALU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 17 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.201 dated 08.07.2025, under Sections 21-B, 25, 29 & 27(a) of the NDPS Act, (Section 21-C of the NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of suspicion, the police party intercepted a vehicle i.e. Alto Car occupied by co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Gora, Amritpal Singh @ Pal and Lovedeep Singh @ Labha. Upon conducting a search of the vehicle, the police allegedly recovered 50 grams of heroin along with cash amounting to ₹2,000/-, which is stated to be the drug money. During the course of investigation, co-accused Amritpal Singh @ Pal suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he used to supply

Chandigarh heroin across the border along with the petitioner, co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Gora and Daler Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was arraigned as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Amrtitpal Singh @ Pal. Besides the disclosure statement, there is no incriminating material qua the petitioner which would connect him with the alleged recovery and nothing has been recovered from him. Learned counsel further submits that the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused during police custody are not admissible in evidence unless duly corroborated by independent material. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 12 days and co-accused Harpal Singh @ Bhala has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-4923-2026 on 26.02.2026 (Annexure P- 3). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial qua the petitioner is likely to take a long time as only challan has been presented but charges are yet to be framed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 12 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although challan has been presented but charges are yet to be framed.

Chandigarh

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and 12 days, he was not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from him, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as charges are yet to be framed, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) July 17, 2026

JUDGE Sonia

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Chandigarh