IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-7617-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 Balwant Singh alias Joga ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 55 dated 22.10.2025, registered under Sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Mattewal, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.55 dated 22.10.2025 was registered under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Mattewal, District Amritsar, and subsequently Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added vide DDR No.14 dated 22.10.2025. The petitioner Balwant Singh alias Joga was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Mehakdeep Singh and was arrested on 22.10.2025. A recovery of 15 grams of heroin is alleged to have been effected from the petitioner, whereas 10 grams of heroin was recovered from co-accused Mehakdeep Singh. The report of the FSL is still awaited. It is further stated that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases, namely FIR No.45 dated 06.05.2021 under Sections 457/380/411 IPC, Police Station Rangarnangal, Batala, and FIR No. 01 dated 03.01.2025 under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Rangarnangal, Batala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner is 15 grams of heroin, which falls within the non-commercial quantity and is only marginally above the small quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. It is further argued that the alleged contraband was weighed along with the plastic polythene, thereby inflating the total weight.

4. It is further contended that no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery and all the witnesses cited by the prosecution are official witnesses, which casts doubt upon the fairness of the recovery proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, submitting that he was not duly informed of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.

5. Learned counsel has additionally argued that the petitioner was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused and that such disclosure statement has no substantive evidentiary value. It is submitted that the FSL report is still awaited and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

6. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last three months and twenty days and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period, especially when the alleged recovery is of non-commercial quantity.

7. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which is taken on record and opposed the present regular bail application mainly on the ground that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases, one under the provisions of the NDPS Act and another under the IPC. It is submitted that keeping in view his antecedents and involvement in similar offences, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. It is further argued that the recovery of 15 grams of heroin has been effected from the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress, therefore, no leniency should be shown to him.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the recovery effected from the petitioner is 15 grams of heroin, which falls within the non-commercial quantity and is only marginally above the small quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are, thus, not attracted in th