IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 CRM-M-5688-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.03.2026 Akashdeep Singh @ Laddi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. P. S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

1. The instant one is the third petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 89 dated 12.06.2024, registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot. His first petition was dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2025 and second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.10.2025.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 12.06.2024, co-accused Harmandeep Singh was apprehended by a police party headed by ASI Angrej Singh and recovery of 3000 tablets of Trekem-100 having salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him. Since he could not produce any license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drug, he was formally arrested at the spot. Upon interrogation on 13.06.2024, he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was nominated in this case as an accused. The police was searching for the petitioner to arrest him in the present case. However, in the meantime, he was arrested in connection with a case bearing FIR No. 62 dated 18.10.2024, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Thulliwal, District Barnala and was confined in jail. Hence, he was taken into custody in the present case as well by way of production warrant. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, 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 has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery was effected from him. He is in custody since long. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case, and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future, particularly as only 05 out of total 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petitions. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. 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. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered in this case, he does not deserve to be 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 considerable length.

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;