Gurbhinder Singh @ Romy vs State of Punjab

H. S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.103 dated 21.08.2021, registered under Sections 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act, 1920, Section 14 of the Foreigner Act, 1946 (Later on added Sections 18/25/29 of NDPS Act and Section 473 of IPC, 1860 (Now Section 341 BNS, 2023) registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

The case of the prosecution is that Nirmal Singh and his co-accused were arrested, and 40 kg of heroin, along with one packet containing 190 grams of opium, was allegedly recovered from their possession. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended on 27.05.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as there is no corroborative evidence against him except the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is contended that apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.05.2025 and has undergone more than 01 year, 02 months and 14 days. He, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year, 02 months and 14 days.

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

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year, 02 months and 14 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

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 learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.