AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name of Petitioner(s) | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nand Lal @ Bind, aged about 45 years | 14 | 13.03.2025 | 22 of NDPS Act and section 207 of MV Act (charge framed under sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act) | Nurmahal | Jalandhar Rural |
After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the respective parties, on 22.07.2026, following order was passed by this Court:-
“1.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
2.Allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 147 loose intoxicant tablets of Etizolam weighing 15.25 grams.
3.From the custody certificate today produced before this Court, it is found that petitioner is inside jail for the period of last 01 year, 04 months and 07 days and he is facing another case i.e. FIR No. 76/2022 dated 25.08.2022 registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar.
4.Learned counsel need to inform the Court regarding the quantity recovered in that case and the fact when he got released on bail in the aforesaid case.
5.List again on 02.09.2026.”
Today, in order to clarify the position regarding the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner in the other case registered against him, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by learned Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, in case, FIR No.76 dated 25.08.2022, registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar. The said order is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.
Referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as recorded in paragraph No.3 thereof, petitioner was apprehended in the said case and 200 loose intoxicant tablets were allegedly recovered from his possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that petitioner is aged about 45 years and, apart from the aforesaid allegations relating to recovery of 200 loose intoxicant tablets in FIR No.76 dated 25.08.2022 and recovery of 147 loose tablets of Etizolam, weighing 15.25 grams, in the present case, no other criminal case has been registered against him.
It is further submitted that petitioner is inside jail since 14.03.2025, i.e. for a period of 01 year, 05 months and 18 days. Charges were framed on 27.02.2026 and, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Thus, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 01 year 5 months and 18 days period inside jail.
Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, keeping in view the gravity of offence and the fact that quantity of Etizolam allegedly recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature, petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on the file.
Undoubtedly, quantity of Etizolam allegedly recovered from the petitioner falls within the commercial quantity. However, the issue regarding distinction between the maximum of non-commercial quantity as 2.5 grams prescribed for Etizolam salt and maximum of non-commercial quantity as 100 grams prescribed for Alprazolam, is pending consideration before this Court in CRM-M-17105-2026, titled as ‘Paras Sohal v. State of Punjab’, which is now adjourned to 08.09.2026.
Petitioner is inside jail for a period of one year, five months and 18 days. Charges were framed on 27.02.2026 and, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Having regard to the totality of circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, period of incarceration already undergone by him, issue pending consideration before this Court, and present stage of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
Petition stands disposed of.