IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Beant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 12.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. R. S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 35 dated 22.04.2025, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

at Police Station Mehna, District Moga.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 22.04.2025, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party headed by ASI Manpreet Kaur and recovery of 80 loose tablets (Etizolam) was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot. As per FSL report, the total weight of the recovered tablets was found to be 11.36 grams, which falls under commercial quantity. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him. In fact, the police officials of the Police Station Mehna are having personal animosity with the petitioner and his family as the wife of the petitioner had previously filed a complaint before the higher police officers against Arshpreet Kaur, SHO of the said police station and it was in that backdrop that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Even after registration of the present FIR, the wife of the petitioner had submitted an application with regard to his false implication but no action was taken. It is further argued that the petitioner was in fact picked up from village Dholewala but his apprehension has been shown by the police from T-point situated at Chugawan to Kapure road. The petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2025. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. His involvement in other cases cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-

State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is already involved in 13 other FIRs of similar nature. The applications/representations filed by his wife were duly inquired into and finding no substance therein, the same were filed. False and baseless allegations have been levelled against the police officials without any evidence. Even otherwise, at the time of registration of the present FIR, SI Sunita Rani was the SHO of the Police Station Mehna and not the aforesaid Inspector Arshpreet Kaur. The quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity, which attracts rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner. There are chances of the petitioner’s absconding or committing similar offences, if released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at consider