Deepak vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 72 dated 13.03.2026, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, added later on at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, during the pendency of the trial.

As per the prosecution version, on 13.03.2026, a police party headed by ASI Jatinder Pal was conducting checking in the area of Police Station City Phagwara. When the police party reached near Mandir on Khalwara Road, Phagwara, a young man coming on foot from the side of Baba Gadhia allegedly threw a black-coloured polythene envelope on the roadside on seeing the police party and attempted to walk away. He was apprehended and disclosed his name as Aksar alias Akse son of Rakesh. On being questioned, Aksar allegedly stated that the polythene envelope contained intoxicating tablets. After he consented to the search being conducted by the police officer, the envelope was searched and 75 strips of Addnok-N 2/0.5 mg, containing 10 tablets each, i.e. 750 tablets in total, were allegedly recovered. The batch number on the strips was stated to have been erased. The recovered contraband was converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal bearing the initials “JP” and taken into possession. Aksar allegedly failed to produce any licence or document authorising possession of the said tablets and, accordingly, the present FIR was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Deepak was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot. The alleged recovery of 750 tablets of Addnok-N 2/0.5 mg was effected exclusively from co-accused Aksar alias Akse. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner at the time of his arrest or thereafter.

It is further submitted that the petitioner was nominated subsequently during investigation only on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of co-accused Aksar alias Akse, wherein he allegedly stated that he was indulging in the sale of intoxicant tablets along with his friend Deepak. Apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged recovery. No recovery has also been effected pursuant to any disclosure allegedly made by the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot and the prosecution does not allege that he was accompanying co-accused Aksar at the time of the alleged recovery. Thus, the alleged recovery from the co-accused cannot be attributed to the petitioner in the absence of any material showing his conscious possession or involvement. It is further submitted that the FSL report in respect of the alleged recovered tablets had not been received, and the petitioner had even sought interim bail on account of non-receipt of the FSL report, which application was declined by the learned Special Judge, Kapurthala. The absence of the FSL report is material for determining the nature and composition of the alleged recovered substance.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The challan had also not been presented as on the date of filing of the petition. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner, particularly when no recovery has been effected from him and the FSL report is awaited, would serve no useful purpose. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case, has not been declared a proclaimed offender and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is ready to face the trial and undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and custody certificate dated 03.09.2026, has already been placed on record, as per the which, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 05 months and 17 days as on 03.09.2026.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Aksar alias Akse, and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was subsequently added, indicating the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the offence. He further submits that the FSL report is still awaited and the nature and composition of the recovered substance is yet to be finally established. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and his role is a matter to be examined during trial.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot, and no recovery was effected from him. The alleged recovery of 750 tablets was made from co-accused Aksar alias Akse. The petitioner has been nominated subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added subsequently during investigation. The FSL report in respect of the alleged recovered substance has not been received so far, and therefore, the nature and composition of the recovered tablets is yet to be established by the forensic report. The petitioner has remained in custody for a substantial period and the trial is likely to take considerable time and further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.