Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 6.655 kg of heroin, which was allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Gurjot Singh @ Jot and Simran Kaur @ Indu and the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2024 and thereafter has been released on interim regular bail vide order dated 27.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not misused the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

7. The petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24.01.2025. Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only 2 have been examined partly till date. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not misused the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him vide order dated 27.03.2025. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

8. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; the petitioner is stated to be 34 years old, having been released on interim regular bail since 27.03.2025 & there is no allegation of having misused the said concession of interim regular bail; this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 27.03.2025 is hereby confirmed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: