IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57999-2025 Date of decision :07.03.2026 Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, D.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present third petition has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.96 dated 30.06.2024, under Section 22(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 31 of NDPS Act, added lateron), registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural).

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while on patrolling on 30.06.2024, saw a young person coming on foot, who on seeing the police got perplexed. On suspicion, he was apprehended by the police party. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa (present petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, his search was conducted. On conducting his personal search, a transparent polythene was recovered from the right pocket of his trouser from which 215 loose intoxicating tablets were recovered. He failed to produce any license regarding possession of the same and hence, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of FSL report, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court, Jalandhar vide order dated 29.08.2024. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier approached twice this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-63717- 2024 and CRM-M-28445-2025, which were declined by this Court vide orders dated 03.03.2025 and 27.05.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present third petition for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency. He submits that admittedly the recovery has been effected from the personal search of the petitioner but the same is in gross violation of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in 05 other cases, however, he is on bail in those cases. He submits that his custody in other cases was sought on the production warrant and thus, it is apparent that the cases were falsely planted upon the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars from last 1 ½ years, however, there is no progress material in the trial and thus, his right of speedy trial is defeated. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the alleged recovery from the personal search of the petitioner is of 215 loose intoxicating tablets containing Etizolam and the same was weighing

22.790 grams, which falls under the category of commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is involved in other cases as well. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 12 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that as per the case of the prosecution the alleged recovery of 22.790 grams of Etizolam, has been effected from from the personal search of the petitioner. The recovery has been effected by the Investigat