Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.266 dated 10.09.2025 registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural, under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) [Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on].

Custody certificate dated 12.09.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

On 09.09.2025, an information was received about a suspected flying object having been detected on the Indo-Pak Border. Accordingly, Quick Reaction Teams of the BSF were dispatched. During the initial search, one packet of a suspected contraband (heroin) wrapped in a yellow adhesive was recovered from the farming fields. The weight of the same came to be 550 grams. At that time, some movement was noticed in the adjacent high-rise Sarkanda fields. Accordingly, the fields were searched and two persons namely Dilbag Singh (petitioner) and Gurnam Singh were apprehended. As per the FIR, they were supposedly courier agents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner and his mere presence in an adjoining field would not make it to be a case of recovery from the petitioner and it cannot, in any manner, be said that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband. He further submits that the field from which the packet was recovered does not belong to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year; his antecedents are clean; investigation has been completed; final report has been submitted; charges have been framed on 15.07.2026; out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that a commercial quantity of heroin was recovered.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Concededly, the recovery was not made from the petitioner. It was made from an open field which did not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner was found in the nearby Sarkanda fields. As to whether the petitioner is actually involved or not shall be determined when the trial concludes. As to whether it can be stated to be a case of conscious possession of a contraband shall also be determined when the trial concludes. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Investigation has been completed. Final report has been submitted. Charges have been framed on 15.07.2026. However, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.