IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.02.2026 Date of uploading : 18.02.2026 Satyveer ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:3)

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 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.160 dated 25.8.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 18-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 5 Kgs. of opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused on 24.8.2024 in the area of Anaj Mandi, Mandi Gobindgarh while they were going on motor cycle bearing registeration No.PB08-DA-

0857.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2024. 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 iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 01 year, 5 months and 20 days. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.02.2026 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 24.08.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 08.01.2025. Charges in the present case were framed on 30.01.2025. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 10 have been examined and 01 has been given up till date. 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 (cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)ti(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:4)ti(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:4)ti(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:2)ti(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:7)ti(cid:4) (cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:2)ti(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:4)ti(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)ti(cid:8)ti(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:28)(cid:9)ti(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)ti(cid:7)(cid:9)ti(cid:4)ti(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:4)ti(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:22) is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof