AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 269 dated 10.11.2025, registered under Sections 21-C, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Kotakpura, Faridkot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims parity with co-accused Anmol Singh, as he is identically placed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is on a better footing, as there are 10 other cases against co-accused Anmol Singh, whereas only two other cases are registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that, in those two cases, the petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statements and no recovery has been effected from him. It is also argued that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future and that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would cause great hardship.
Per contra, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which is taken on record, and opposed the grant of any concession to the petitioner. However, he could not deny the fact that the other co-accused has already been granted bail.
In view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.11.2025, no recovery has been effected from him. Coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to the concession of regular bail.
Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail if not required in any other case on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The petitioner shall, however, be released on the following conditions:
i The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him.
ii The petitioner will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence.
iii The petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.
iv The petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case the petitioner does not possess a passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released.
The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and this order shall not be considered as parity qua any other co-accused in any manner whatsoever.
It is further made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.