Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 20 dated 22.02.2025, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 22(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. His previous petition was filed for grant of interim bail, which was granted to him.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 22.02.2025, co-accused Sukhraj Singh @ Gori and Anhad Parkash were apprehended by a police party and recovery of 700 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from them. Since they could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in their possession the recovered drugs, they were formally arrested at the spot. During custodial interrogation, they confessed that they had purchased the drugs from the present petitioner and co-accused Shivam Dewan. Thereafter, the petitioner was also arrested and 1350 intoxicant injections of Tramadol Hydrochloride, 200 intoxicant injection of NRX Pentazocine, 2600 intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam, 2500 intoxicant tablets of NRX Tramadol Hydrochloride and 360 intoxicant tablets of Clovedool 100 SR were recovered from him. He made disclosure statement to the effect that he along with his partner Shivam was running a medical store under the name & style of DM Medical Store and they both under the garb of medical store were selling intoxicant tablets and injections in huge quantity. On the basis of the same, said Shivam Dewan was also nominated in this case and was arrested on 10.09.2025. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co-accused. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. The petitioner is in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. His involvement in one more case of similar nature cannot be made a reason to deny him bail in this case. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents as well as the fact that huge quantity of contraband, which falls under commercial quantity, has been recovered from him, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against him. Trial may be expedited. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements of the abovenamed accused, from whom 700 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride were recovered. The allegations against the petitioner are that the co-accused had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. After the nomination of the petitioner as accused in this case and after his arrest, a huge quantity of the contraband, as mentioned above, had been effected from his conscious possession, which obviously falls under commercial quantity. Hence, the allegations attract the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose additional conditions for grant of bail. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or record a finding on the merits of the case. It is true that the investigation has been completed and challan has been presented and the petitioner has remained in custody since 23.03.2025. However, these factors by themselves cannot outweigh the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity. No material has been brought on record at this stage to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. There is also no sufficient basis to conclude that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.