IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 *****

CRM-M No.787 of 2026 Date of decision : 7.3.2026 Date of uploading : 7.3.2026 Satvir Singh @ Satti ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner (through VC)

Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2 dated 2.1.2025 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala.

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 496 intoxicant capsules make proxywel spas (as per FSL report containing 532 mg of tramadol hydrochloride salt, totaling 263 grams of tramadol) allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 2.1.2025 by the police party in the area of Main Road T-Point Super Market, Police Station Sadar, Patiala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 2.1.2025. 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 has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner 263 grams of tramadol, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. 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 and

2 months. 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 5.3.2026 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 2.1.2025 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 17.5.2025.

Charges in the present case were framed on 3.6.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only one has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 263 grams of tramadol, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for non-commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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 i