IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61012-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.03.2026 Narinder @ Kallu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. M. S. Nain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

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 FIR No. 96 dated 12.09.2024, registered under Sections 21C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

at Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazilka.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 12.09.2024, co-accused Vikramjeet Singh was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 513 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband, he was formally arrested at the spot. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from one Buta Singh and he was to sell the same to co-accused Sidharth, Gurwinder Singh and the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the present petitioner and abovenamed persons were nominated in this case as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2025. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan/supplementary challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. He was alleged to be the prospective buyer of the recovered contraband. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co- accused. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan/supplementary challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. His involvement in other cases cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. The petitioner is in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused c