CRM-M/14478/2026 of WILLIAM MASIH ALIAS AKASH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 16 July 2026

1. This petition has been under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 9 dated 11.01.2024 u/s 21, 29, 61, 25,85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2024, while the police party was on patrol duty, a secret informer informed them that two persons, namely William Masih and Akash Masih, were present near Rajasansi Jhanjoti on a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-EG-8599 and were carrying a huge quantity of heroin. Acting upon the said information, the police party laid a naka/checkpoint at the disclosed place. After some time, the two accused were spotted approaching on the said RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh motorcycle. On noticing the police party, they allegedly attempted to flee but were apprehended. It is the prosecution case that Akash Masih was riding the motorcycle, whereas the present petitioner/applicant, William Masih, was the pillion rider. Upon conducting the personal search of William Masih in accordance with law, three packets concealed inside the jacket worn by him were recovered. The packets were found to contain heroin weighing 500 grams each, totaling 1.5 kilograms, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the contraband was seized, the accused were arrested at the spot, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the competent Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 11.01.2024. It is further contended that the co-accused, namely Akash @ Akash Masi @ Garari, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2026, and, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the benefit of parity. He further submits that though the prosecution has referred to the petitioner's involvement in another case under the NDPS Act, the said FIR came to be registered while the petitioner was already facing trial and was in custody in the present case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He opposes the prayer for grant of RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh regular bail on the ground that the recovery effected from the petitioner is of 1.5 kilograms of heroin, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 05 months and 29 days and is involved in 02 more cases. However, on instructions, learned State counsel fairly submits that out of the 13 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 05 months and 29 days; co-accused has been granted concession of regular bail and out of the 13 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 16.07.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh