JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.01 dated 04.01.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), Sections 482 and 411 of IPC, at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the recovery of 153 tablets of Etizolam and 173 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride from the petitioner and his co-accused Gurwinder Singh @ Kalu on 04.01.2024. The contraband alleged to have been recovered is indubitably commercial in nature.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.01.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused, namely, Gurwinder Singh @ Kalu has been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in CRM-M No.34888 of 2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years and 02 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status-report by way of affidavit of Rajiv Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- Division Adampur, Jalandhar (Rural) in Court today. The same is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status-report, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2024 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the Challan was presented on 27.03.2024 and charges were framed on 16.07.2024. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 06 witnesses have been examined and 01 witness have been given up till date. It is not in dispute that co-accused, namely, Gurwinder Singh @ Kalu has been granted the concession of regular bail. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 02 months and 26 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CR