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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar @ Raju, aged about 32 syears | 0225 | 08.11.2025 | 18(b) of NDPS Act [sections 18, 27-A/61/85 of NDPS Act added later on] | Sadar Tohana | Fatehabad |
Case of the prosecution is that police team, while patrolling in search of anti-social elements and for the purpose of controlling the menace of drugs, was present near Laloda Bus Stand, when a special informer met the police team and disclosed that Raj Kumar alias Raju (petitioner herein) was involved in smuggling opium in huge quantities. The informer further disclosed that the accused was still standing ahead of the railway gate, Laloda, on the road leading towards Pirthala, carrying opium in his hand and waiting for someone. It was further informed that, if a raid was conducted, the accused could be apprehended along with the opium.
Acting upon the said information, police team reached the disclosed place, where petitioner was apprehended. Upon his apprehension, an orange polythene bag being carried by him was searched, from which 2 kg 537 grams of opium was allegedly recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantity of opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only 37 grams in excess of the maximum quantity prescribed as non-commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that petitioner is inside jail since 11.11.2025 and has, thus, undergone for a period of approximately nine months and twenty-two days of incarceration. Learned counsel further submits that, apart from the present case, petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case.
It is also submitted that, despite completion of investigation, charges were framed only on 22.07.2026 and, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined, till date. Therefore, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 02.09.2026 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 09 months and 22 days period inside jail and there is no other case registered against him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel is unable to controvert any of the factual assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, including the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and present stage of the trial. Nevertheless, he 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.
Petitioner is inside jail since 11.11.2025 and, as on date, he has undergone incarceration for a period of 9 months and 22 days. Investigation already stands concluded and charges were framed on 22.07.2026. However, 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 the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, period of incarceration already undergone, and present stage of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. Accordingly, 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.