125+126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.02.2026 Date of uploading: 27.02.2026 Prabhjeet Singh @ Prabh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition is the second attempt, which has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.113 dated 03.09.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 (added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 10, 11, 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (deleted later on), at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 541 grams of heroin, which was recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2025. 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 1 ½ years.

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 barred 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 27.02.2026 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 24.09.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 28.02.2026. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which three have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that 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. A perusal of the zimni orders appended alongwith CRM-9037-2026 reflects that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 27.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 5 months and 19 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR/case.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Sh