Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zulfkar Ali Alias Zulfi vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.72 dated
23.05.2020, registered at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Ba
Barnala,
under Sections 21, 22, 25 and 29 NDPS Act, and Sections 465, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B
120 IPC (Sections 336, 338, 339, 340(2)/61 BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel submit that petitioner
petitioner-Zulfkar Ali has been
in custody for 5 years and about 9 months, while ppetitioner-Aman Singla
for 5 years and about 10 months. They allege false implication
implication. Their
names surfaced based on disclosure statement of co
co-accused Balwinder
Singh. Further that, on their own disclosure statements, 12000
intoxicating tablets were allegedly recovered from the former, while
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28 18:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
10,500 tablets from the latter near the gear box of the car, which belonged
to co-accused Bittu Ram, who is in custody, wherein he was sitting on the
conductor seat, thus, it is debatable
Co-accused, namely Ravinder Singh @ Binda and
Deepak Arora have since been granted bail by this Court on 24.04.2026,
after being in custody of 5 years, 9 months and 19 days and 5 years and 5
years, 7 months and 27 days, besides 5 others.
Charges have been framed
on 15.10.2022, however, 129 PWs stands examined and there are still 19
more to go. Petitioner-Aman Singla is not involved in any other case,
while petitioner-
Reliance is placed on
the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificates dated 27.04.2026, filed by the
learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, petitioner-
Aman Singla is behind bars for 5 years, 9 months and 18 days while
petitioner-
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of intoxicating tablets was recovered from the
petitioners. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with
regard to stage of the case; petitioner-Aman Singla being not involved in
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28 18:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
any other case; petitioner-
and the co-accused having been enlarged on bail.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”
7. Hon’ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif
versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on
04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1
year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in
the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender
Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed
with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act.
8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab
CRM-M-57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down
by Hon’ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28 18:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in
Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023,
wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2
out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, in particular they being in
custody for the last 5 years, 8 months and 21 days and 5 years, 9 months
and 18 days, respectively; petitioner-Aman Singla not involved in any
other case; petitioner-
the trial is likely to take a considerable time;
further incarceration of the petitioners would be violative of their right
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as observed by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha, SLP
Crl No.4169-2023, decided on 13.07.2023, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act, thus the present petitions are allowed.
10. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on
their furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
11. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioners by this order.
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28 18:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
12. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and
would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the
trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file(s)..
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28 18:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.