The court reaffirmed that regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in offences under the NDPS Act should not be granted when the trial is at an advanced stage and most prosecution witnesses have been examined. The judgment upholds existing legal precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts dealing with bail applications in similar circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/25507/2025 of GAGANDEEP SINGH @ GORA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010710932025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) |
| Questions of Law |
Whether regular bail should be granted under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in NDPS matters when trial is at an advanced stage and most witnesses have been examined. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the grant of regular bail when trial is at an advanced stage, with substantial prosecution evidence already recorded and only two witnesses remaining, is not called for. Dismissal of bail at such a stage is thus appropriate. Directions were also given to the trial court to conclude prosecution evidence expeditiously. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner and a co-accused were apprehended with heroin in their possession; the trial had seen 14 of 16 prosecution witnesses examined, with only two remaining, and the co-accused had withdrawn their own bail application recently. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, as an example of bail principles when trial is near completion |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in NDPS matters, when the trial is at an advanced stage and most prosecution witnesses have been examined, regular bail is unlikely to be granted.
- Lawyers should assess stage of trial before moving bail applications under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in serious NDPS cases.
- The court can direct lower courts to expedite remaining prosecution evidence when refusing bail at an advanced trial stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that 14 out of 16 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, and the matter was fixed for further prosecution evidence, signaling that the trial was at an advanced stage.
- It was submitted by the State that the co-accused had recently withdrawn their own bail petition, reinforcing the seriousness and the stage of proceedings.
- Upon considering the facts and given the limited number of witnesses left and proximity to conclusion, the court found no ground for concession of regular bail at this juncture.
- Instead, to balance the need for a speedy trial, the court directed the trial court to conclude the prosecution’s evidence within a prescribed period.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.
- Emphasized facts of the case regarding alleged recovery and procedural aspects (as per judgment’s summarization).
Respondent (State)
- Opposed bail, highlighting that 14 out of 16 witnesses had already been examined.
- Emphasized the advanced stage of the trial.
- Informed the court about the recent withdrawal of bail application by the co-accused.
Factual Background
A police party apprehended the petitioner and a co-accused while patrolling, recovering heroin from each individual. The FIR was registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of the NDPS Act. As per case status, 14 out of 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the case was scheduled for further prosecution evidence. The petitioner filed a third application for regular bail.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail.
- The offences involved were Section 21-C (relating to commercial quantity of narcotic drugs) and Section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
- The court applied the principles regarding grant or refusal of bail at a late stage in trial, emphasizing judicial discretion and the completion of significant portions of evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court, while dismissing the bail application at an advanced stage, directed the trial court to conclude the recording of prosecution evidence expeditiously, within a stipulated period.
- No other procedural innovations recorded.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles on refusing bail in advanced-stage trials (especially in NDPS matters) are reaffirmed; earlier judicial approach is maintained.