Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh vs State of Punjab

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS/439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 186 dated 13.11.2023, under Sections 21/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Sections 304/427 IPC (Corresponding Sections 105/324 BNSS) registered at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the co-accused was apprehended with 07 Kgs and 30 gms of heroin. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot whereas the co-accused had succeeded in fleeing away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Moreover, co-accused Rajinder Singh @ Rinku and Parminder Singh have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2025 and 20.03.2025 passed in CRM-M-68324-2025 and CRM-M-14129-2025 respectively. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 08 months and 22 days. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 08 months and 22 days and out of total cited 25 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far.

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

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 08 months and 22 days and out of total cited 25 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined so far; co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025), decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

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

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

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.