Pawan Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in FIR No.147 dated 20.09.2024, registered under Sections 21(c), 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, with Sections 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act added later. The petitioner contended he was not present during the raid at Rinku Thapar's house, his name was not disclosed by the informant, and he is a 70-year-old businessman filing GST returns for two firms. His name allegedly emerged later from the statement of co-accused Kamal Kumar, from whom nothing incriminating was recovered. The petitioner has been in jail since 25.09.2024. The State argued the petitioner is an active member of a group involved in illegal NDPS activities and thus not entitled to bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. It found that the petitioner was not present at the time of the raid, and the prosecution's case against him was primarily based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Kamal Kumar, from whom no recovery was made. The Court noted that the petitioner's name was not disclosed by the secret informant. It held that keeping the petitioner behind bars indefinitely solely on assumptions of involvement, without substantial evidence being shown by the prosecution, would be unjust. The Court reasoned that prima facie, the petitioner's submissions were convincing for examining his liberty. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds, provided he is not required in any other case. The Court clarified that its observations were not on the merits of the case and the Trial Court would decide based on the evidence. It also warned against misuse of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his alleged involvement in activities under the NDPS Act, 1985, and Arms Act, 1959? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not present at the scene of the alleged crime, his name was not part of the initial disclosure by the informant, and his involvement is solely based on the subsequent statement of a co-accused (Kamal Kumar) from whom no recovery was made. He highlighted his age (70 years) and his status as a businessman regularly filing GST returns as factors supporting his release. He also stated he is no longer required for investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner is an active member of a group engaged in illegal activities related to the NDPS Act and therefore does not deserve the concession of regular bail.