Alex @ Addy vs State of Punjab

H.S.GREWAL, J.(Oral)

This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0074 dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) under Section 21 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) Police Station Division 1, District Pathankot.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with co-accused were apprehended while travelling on a black Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-09-T-0697. During the course of their apprehension, co-accused Paras alias Aakash allegedly threw a polythene envelope, which, upon search, was found to contain 200 grams of heroin.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of 200 grams of heroin was effected from a polythene envelope thrown by co-accused Paras alias Akash. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a school-going boy and has no connection with the alleged offence. Even as per the prosecution version, the alleged supply of the contraband was made by co-accused Fauja @ Ravi Kumar to co-accused Paras through Munish Kumar, and no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner has been nominated without any cogent material. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.05.2026.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Mavpreet Singh, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He 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 three months and is not involved in any other case.

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

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody for the last three months and is not involved in any other case 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.

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.

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

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.