AMANDEEP SINGH @ AMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.112, dtd. 3/8/2025, under Sec. 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Sec. 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural.

(2.) Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 3/8/2025, received a secret information to the effect that Amandeep Singh @ Aman (petitioner), who drives a three wheeler, is involved in selling of heroin. It was informed that he would come from village Manawala to village Varpal on his three-wheeler and in case of barricading, he could be apprehended along with the contraband. On receiving the secret information, the raiding party was constituted and the barricading was laid. The auto rickshaw, as disclosed in the secret information, was seen coming and thus, the same was stopped by the police. The driver of the auto rickshaw disclosed his name to be Amandeep Singh @ Aman (petitioner). From his possession, 30 grams of heroin was recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dtd. 9/9/2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information but there is violation of mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 of NDPS Act. He has submitted that there is a violation of provisions of Sec. 50 of NDPS Act as well. He has submitted that the recovery has been effected from the public place, however no independent witness has been joined. He has submitted that even otherwise, the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner is 30 grams of heroin, which is a non commercial quantity. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 3/8/2025. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.