Manjit @ Manjeet vs State of Punjab and Ors

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 06.04.2025, registered under Sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (Sections 21-C, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

The case of the prosecution is that on 06.04.2025, the police party received secret information that co-accused Ravi Pawar, along with his associates, was involved in the sale of heroin and was present in the area of D-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, for delivery of a consignment of heroin. On the basis of the said information, Ravi Pawar was apprehended and heroin weighing 1 kg 18 grams was recovered from him. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had reached the spot on a motorcycle and was apprehended in the vicinity where Ravi Pawar was arrested.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no contraband whatsoever was recovered from the petitioner and that the entire recovery of 1 kg 18 grams of heroin was effected from co-accused Ravi Pawar. It is contended that even according to the prosecution's own case, the petitioner was merely present near the place where Ravi Pawar was apprehended, and the recovery memo as well as the personal search memo of the petitioner do not disclose any recovery of contraband from him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of his alleged proximity to co-accused Ravi Pawar and the allegation that he had delivered the contraband to him at the instance of Inspector Prashant Kuhar, who was Malkhana Incharge of the Customs Department, Amritsar. It is argued that the said allegation is false and unsupported by any independent material collected during investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation in the present case stands concluded and the final report has already been presented. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 03 months and 24 days and the trial is yet to commence.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 03 months and 24 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

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 the last more than 01 year, 03 months and 24 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as only one prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, 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 her 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 her bail.