IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

CRM-M No.13205 of 2026 Date of decision : 20.3.2026 Date of uploading : 20.3.2026 Raju @ Sukha @ Baeya ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana ---

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.226 dated 13.12.2025, under Sections 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad.

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 25.05 grams of heroin allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co- accused, namely, Harpreet Kaur and Jasbir Kaur on 13.12.2025 while they were travelling on a motor cycle in the area of Canal Bridge on Sardarewala-Hakamwala road, Ratia.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2025. Learned counsel 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 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 25.05 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 19.3.2026. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. 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 13.12.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was prepared on 9.2.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 16 witnesses have been cited but none has been examined as charges are yet to be framed in this case. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 25.05 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial quantity. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which 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 As per the custody certificate dated 19.3.2026, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 3 month and 7 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-20