Bittu Ram vs State Of Punjab

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions shall stand disposed of, as the same arise out of one common FIR.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Since there is no representation on behalf of either of the petitioners, with the able assistance rendered by learned State counsel, pleadings in the respective petitions have been perused and the record has also been gone through.

As per the case of prosecution, on the intervening night of 24/25.09.2025, at about 11:25 P.M., ASI/SHO Samarjit Singh stopped a Canter, bearing registration No. HP-93A-1083. The occupants of the said vehicle, namely, Bittu Ram (petitioner in CRM-M-5411-2026), who was sitting on the driver's seat, and his companion Dhani Ram (petitioner in CRM-M-38889-2026), who was sitting on the conductor's seat, were enquired. Upon search of the cabin of the Canter, one plastic bag was allegedly recovered from behind the driver's seat, which was found to contain 5 kg of opium. Both the petitioners were thereafter arrested and have remained in custody since 25.09.2025.

Learned State counsel has produced in Court today, the custody certificates of both the petitioners, dated 08.09.2026, which are taken on record. Office is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.

As per the custody certificates, both the petitioners have undergone for a period of approximately 11 months and 10 days of incarceration in the present case.

Learned State counsel submits that, upon completion of investigation, challan was presented on 17.03.2026 and charges were thereafter framed on 03.08.2026. Out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

It is not disputed that petitioner-Bittu Ram was sitting on the driver's seat and is also stated to be the owner of the Canter in question. The alleged contraband was recovered from a plastic bag stated to have been lying behind the driver's seat.

However, learned State counsel fairly submits that neither of the petitioners has previously been involved in any case under the NDPS Act. It is, however, pointed out that petitioner-Bittu Ram is facing trial in FIR No. 88 dated 13.05.2016, registered under Sections 376(2), 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which is stated to be still pending.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and has also gone through the material available on record.

Having regard to the fact that both the petitioners are inside jail for the last 11 months and 10 days, and keeping in view the quantity of the alleged contraband, i.e., 5 kg of opium, this Court is of the considered view that, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to record any definitive finding, as to whether the plastic bag containing alleged contraband was placed behind the driver's seat by petitioner-Dhani Ram or petitioner-Bittu Ram, or whether both the petitioners were within the knowledge of its presence. Such questions are matters to be determined during the course of trial, on the basis of the evidence to be led by the prosecution.

It is also significant that petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case registered under the NDPS Act. Investigation already stands completed, challan has been presented, and charges have been framed. However, out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, and therefore, trial is likely to take considerable time.

To the view point of this Court, both the petitioners deserve an opportunity to face the trial while remaining on bail and to rehabilitate themselves in society.

In view of the totality of circumstances, nature of the allegations, period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners, stage of the trial, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of bail to both the petitioners in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions is allowed. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

Both the petitions stand disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.