High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 2000

Varun Saini Alias Bablu vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Virinder Aggarwal, J
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-34573-2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 1,309 words

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 05 dated 08.02.2025, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, with Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 having been added subsequently, along with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot.

2.

As per the prosecution case, on 08.02.2025, a police party headed by SI Lekh Raj, while on patrol duty in the area of village Jainpur, received secret information that Jatinder Kumar @ Kali, along with his associates, was involved in smuggling heroin from Pakistan through drones and that a drone, along with narcotic substance received from Pakistan, had been concealed in the area of village Paharipur. Acting upon the information, a raid was conducted and co-accused Jatinder Kumar @ Kali was apprehended. During the search, 42 grams 170 milligrams of heroin was allegedly recovered from a wax envelope thrown by him. During investigation, the present petitioner Varun Saini was subsequently nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2025, about one month after registration of the FIR. Thereafter, Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS were added. No contraband is stated to have been recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner. The prosecution alleges his involvement in the activities relating to the supply of narcotics through drones from Pakistan.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been subsequently implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused. The alleged recovery of 42 grams 170 milligrams of heroin was effected from co-accused Jatinder Kumar @ Kali and not from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was any contraband or drone recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2025 and has remained in custody since then. No recovery is now required from him and his custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. The petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of custody and, in the absence of any recovery from him, his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The trial is also likely to take considerable time. Learned counsel further submits that, apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no independent or corroborative material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner, therefore, prays for the concession of regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 12.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 01 year 05 months and 30 days.

6.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail, submitting that the petitioner was nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused and is alleged to be involved in the smuggling of heroin through drones from Pakistan.

7.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be implicated subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused. The alleged recovery of 42 grams 170 milligrams of heroin was effected from co-accused Jatinder Kumar @ Kali, and no recovery of contraband or any drone is stated to have been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2025 and his custodial interrogation is no longer required. The investigation already stands completed and the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of custody. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

8.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

1.

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

5.

The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6.

The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.