After 2 Years 7 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Duo Accused In 1.012-Kg Heroin Case As Only 2 Of 41 Witnesses Examined

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail, having regard to their period of custody and the progress of the trial, despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantities of heroin.

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent Magistrate, provided they were not required in another case.

It also directed

The petitioners were directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; the trial court was to decide the case independently and expeditiously.

The Court also stated that the bail order would be deemed cancelled if either petitioner were directly found engaging in similar activities in future.

01Facts

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act; Vikramjit Singh was also charged under Section 201 IPC, corresponding to Section 238 BNS.

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that 1.012 kg of heroin was recovered from behind the music system in a car occupied by both petitioners.

p. 3

Further recoveries were allegedly made from co-accused persons during the investigation.

pp. 3–4, 6

Awneet Kaur’s three earlier bail petitions had been withdrawn, while Vikramjit Singh’s earlier petition had been dismissed.

p. 2

At the time of hearing, both petitioners had undergone more than two years and seven months’ custody; only two of the 41 prosecution witnesses had been examined in chief.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail, having regard to their period of custody and the progress of the trial, despite the alleged recovery of commercial quantities of heroin.

pp. 5–7

ii.Whether the petitioners’ release should be subject to conditions to protect the prosecution process and ensure their participation in the proceedings.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the provision governing the applications for regular bail.

p. 2

The alleged offences arose under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and, in Vikramjit Singh’s case, Section 201 IPC (corresponding to Section 238 BNS).

p. 2

The Court’s stated basis for granting bail was its assessment of the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the pace of the trial.

p. 7

No precedent is cited in the judgment.

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21 Section 29

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 201

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 238

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the State’s opposition based on the substantial alleged recoveries, including the recovery from the car occupied by the petitioners and subsequent recoveries attributed to co-accused persons.

p. 6

It nevertheless found that both petitioners had been in custody for more than two years and seven months and that, with only two of 41 prosecution witnesses examined in chief, the trial was likely to take considerable time.

pp. 6–7

Considering these circumstances together with the nature of the allegations, the Court concluded that regular bail was appropriate.

p. 7

05Holding

p. 7

The petitioners were directed not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses; the trial court was to decide the case independently and expeditiously.

pp. 7–8

The Court also stated that the bail order would be deemed cancelled if either petitioner were directly found engaging in similar activities in future.

pp. 7–8

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF