SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YUVRAJ GAMBHIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.71670 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

232

*****

CRM-M No.71670 of 2025

Date of decision : 24.12.2025

Date of uploading : 24.12.2025

Yuvraj Gambhir ………….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Vioshal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.01 dated 1.1.2023 under

Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner was

apprehended by the police and 110 grams of intoxicant powder having

salt alprazolam allegedly was recovered from the petitioner on 1.1.2023

while he was walking on the kacha rasta along with the canal near Canal

Bridge, Nawanshahar Road, Garhshankar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

is in custody since 1.1.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the

1 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2026 10:17:08 :::

##PAGE2##

CRM-M No.71670 of 2025 -2-

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further submitted that mandatory provision of NDPS Act has

not been complied with and therefore, the prosecution case suffers from

defects. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was

earlier extended the concession of interim regular bail on 1.2.2023 on

account of non-filing of FSL report, whereinafter FSL report was

presented on 3.9.2024 and the petitioner has surrendered back. In this

way, the petitioner is now in custody since 3.9.2024. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the contraband allegedly recovered is 110 grams of

alprazolam, which is marginally above from the threshold quantity of 100

grams. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in

custody since more than 9 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. 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 has further iterated that the petitioner is accused of offence

pertaining to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus, his bail

petition is barred in view of the Section 37 of the Act. Learned State

counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.12.2025 in

Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 1.1.2023 whereinafter he was

granted the concession of interim regular bail. After presentation of FSL

2 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2026 10:17:09 :::

##PAGE3##

CRM-M No.71670 of 2025 -3-

report, he has surrendered back and is in custody since 3.9.2024. Challan

in the case was presented on 3.9.2024. Total 9 prosecution witnesses

have been cited out of which 3 have been examined. It is thus,

indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute

that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 110 grams

of alprazolam, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-

commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the

orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-

M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana,

CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of

Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @

Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on

27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-

12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on

bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the

quantity prescribe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top