216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 Hardeep Kumar @ Deepa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for granting regular bail in case FIR No.02 dated 12.01.2025 under Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on) registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1).

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 12.01.2025, while the police party was on patrolling, spotted two persons carrying polythene bags. On seeing the police party, they dropped the polythene bags. On suspicion, both of them were stopped and on asking, they disclosed their names as Hardeep Singh @ Deepa (petitioner) and Narinder Singh @ Ninda. They were suspected to carry some contraband in the bags, thus search of the polythene bags was carried out. The bag carried out by Hardeep Singh @ Deepa (petitioner) was found to be containing 60 grams of Alprazolam and the bag carried out by Narinder Singh @

Ninda was found to be containing 40 grams. They failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same. Hence, they were arrested on the spot and on registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and recovered substance was sent to the FSL lab and the challan was presented. On framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 08.05.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He further submits that alleged recovery has been effected from the public place but no independent witness has been joined. He submits that there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that even otherwise the alleged recovery from the petitioner of 60 grams Alprazolam falls under the non- commercial quantity. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 12.01.2025 but till date there is no progress in the trial. He, thus, submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner was arrested on the spot. She has submitted that on due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act recovery of 60 grams of contraband was effected from the petitioner. She has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner is also involved in one more case for the offence of similar nature. On instructions, she submits that the charges have been framed and out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that in the present FIR recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is of 60 grams of Alprazolam, which is admittedly non-commercial quantity. Out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. The custody certificate would reflect that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and has suffered incarceration of 05 months & 21 days as on

04.07.2025. He is involved in one more case, however, he is on bail in that case.

6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of t