Ninder v. State of Punjab

IN

Ninder State of Punjab

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

The BNSS, 2023, f

06.10.2025, und Police Station B

2.

Lea been falsely im offence. He fur and the content handkerchief th the alleged reco commercial. He

06.10.2025 and

3.

On certificate of th

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR Da

VERSUS

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . I.S.Deol, Advocate for the petiti . H.S.Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab. -.- ANNU J. (Oral) e jurisdiction of this Court has b for grant of regular bail to the der Sections 21, 22 and 29 of th Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural arned counsel for the petitione mplicated in the present case and rther submits that challan in the ts of the alleged 70 loose into hrown by the petitioner are yet overy of heroin recovered is only e further submits that the peti trial is likely to take some time t n the other hand, learned State he petitioner, which is taken o JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-M-73769-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision : 14.01.2026

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU ioner.

been invoked under Section 483 e petitioner in FIR No.146, da he NDPS Act, 1982, registered l, Punjab. er contends that the petitioner d he has no concern with the s present case is yet to be presen oxicant tablets recovered from to be ascertained. Even otherw y 16 grams and 9 mg, which is n itioner has been in custody sin to conclude. counsel has produced the custo on record, to demonstrate that

3 of ated d at has said nted wise, non-nce

petitioner has su seeks dismissal offender and 09 It is further subm

4.

I ha

5.

As involved in othe judgment of Ho of U.P and An circumstances o and the bail app that the petition said judgment is "As ant In acc circ of t

6.

So report is still aw provisions of N under Section 3 receiving the rep Constitution of I uffered incarceration for a perio of the present petition on the gro other cases under the NDPS Ac mitted that the FSL report of loos ave heard learned counsel for the regards the submission of learn er/nine more cases under the N on'ble Supreme Court in Maula nother 2012(2) SCC 382 in wh of the present case are to be see plication of the petitioner canno ner is involved in other/another c s reproduced herein-below:- s observed by the High Court, tecedents, the claim of the seco other words, it is the duty of th cused in the case in which h cumstances such as possibility of the Court etc." far as recovery of 70 loose into waited which is crucial to determi NDPS Act including commerci 7 of the NDPS Act. Keeping th port of FSL would be violative o India. od of 03 months and 05 days. ound that the petitioner is a habit ct are pending against the petition se intoxicant tablets is awaited. e parties and perused the record. ned State counsel that petitione NDPS, reference is placed upon na Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. St hich, it is held that the facts a n while deciding a bail applicat ot be rejected solely on the grou case(s). The relevant portion of t, merely on the basis of crimi ond respondent cannot be reject he Court to find out the role of he has been charged and ot of fleeing away from the jurisdict oxicating tablets are concerned F ine the applicability of string ial quantity threshold and the he petitioner in further detention of his rights under Article 21 of

He tual ner.

er is tate and tion und inal ted. f the ther tion FSL gent bar

7.

A D Others Vs. State "5. con are und con hel Act Me to Ma

¶53prej can of w In s is l In Cou "… v. S Jud Division Bench of this Court e of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Crim

The learned Single Judg ntentions found that the questio e covered under the NDPS Act der the D&C Act has been arisi nsequences would be completel ld to be within the purview of t t. The matter was, therefor eanwhile, the petitioner was ord the satisfaction of the lea agistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhi

Xx

xx

Indeed the delay in ejudice to an alleged offender as n be no definite certainty with r which there has been a contrav such cases to await the outcome likely to be delayed, the accused Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of 8 : (2009) 7 SCC 539, it has b urt as follows:- ……following the decision of this State of U.P., 2009(3) RCR (Cr dgments (R.A.J.) 151: (2009) 4 in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi a minal) 953, has held as under:- ge after considering the ri on whether such substances/dr or not, or can be dealt with o ing frequently in many cases. T ly different if the substances w the D&C Act instead of the ND re, referred to a larger ben dered to be released on interim b arned trial Court/Chief Judic iana. xx

xx testing the sample does result s till the results are available th regard to the contraband in resp vention or that has been recover of the final FSL report where th d may be released on interim b Punjab, 2009(4) RCR (Crimin been held by the Hon'ble Supre Court in Kamlendra Pratap Sin riminal) 401: 2009(4) Recent Ap SCC 437 we reiterate that a co

and ival rugs only The were DPS nch. bail cial t in here pect red. here bail. nal) eme ngh pex

hea inte opi Con per con can aut tarn val Con RC (20 gra inte Of inte

¶54ND unn FSL rep

8.

In regular bail till aring a regular bail application erim bail pending final disposa inion, this is the proper view nstitution of India which prote rson. When a person applies ncerned ordinarily lists that app n look into the case diary which thorities and in the meantime the e applicant is released on bail nished irreparably in society. luable asset, and is a facet of nstitution vide Deepak Bajaj v CR (Criminal) 961: 2008(6) Rec 008) 16 SCC 14. Hence, we are ant bail there is inherent powe erim bail to a person pending fin course, it is in the discretion erim bail or not but the power is

Therefore, the presiding offic DPS cases wherever the need is necessarily delayed may grant L report and thereafter consider port" view of above, the petitioner is the presentation of the FSL r n has got inherent power to gr al of the bail application. In w in view of Article 21 of ects the life and liberty of ev for regular bail then the co plication after a few days so tha has to be obtained from the pol e applicant has to go to jail. Eve thereafter, his reputation may The reputation of a person is f his right under Article 21 of v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 cent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 3 of the opinion that in the power r in the court concerned to gr nal disposal of the bail applicati n of the court concerned to gr certainly there. cer of a Special Court dealing w felt and where the matter is be interim bail till the receipt of red the case after the receipt of s ordered to be released on inte eport before the concerned Co

rant our very ourt at it lice en if be his 8(4) 357: r to rant ion. rant with eing f the rim urt,

subject to his fu trial Court/Duty

9.

Up contraband is fo surrender before before the trial accordance with proceeding as pe

10.

Wit

11.

It i expression of op

12.

Pen

January 14, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether urnishing bail/surety bonds to th y Magistrate. on receipt of report of the Che ound to be falling within comm e the concerned trial Court and Court, the trial Court would b h law and the present order sh er law. th these observations, the presen is clarified that nothing stated pinion on the merits of the case. nding application(s), if any, is/are

r speaking/non-speaking : Speakin r reportable

: Yes/N he satisfaction of the Ld. concern emical Examiner, if the recove mercial quantity, the petitioner sh d if the petitioner fails to surren be at liberty to proceed further hall not be construed as a bar nt petition is disposed of. d herein shall be construed as disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ng

ned ered hall nder r in r in