IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 BACHITTAR SINGH ALIAS BABA ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA ****

Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.196 dated 02.11.2025, registered under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act (lateron added offence under Section 27 of NDPS Act), at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda.

2. As per the allegations, on 02.11.2025, the petitioner along with co-accused Jaskaran Singh @ Lovely Ruggar was apprehended on suspicion and 40 grams of heroin was recovered from their conscious possession, which was taken into possession by the police. The petitioner and the co-

accused were formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is not required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. The recovered contraband is of non-commercial quantity. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender and as many as 11 cases have been registered against him under the provisions of the NDPS Act. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended the benefit of bail.

It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the parties.

6. A non-commercial quantity of contraband is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed. However, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, since none out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any more. He cannot be denied the concession of bail on account of his involvement in other cases. It is well-settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-

conviction sentencing.

7. In view of the facts discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE February 20, 2026 Nisha-1