[243] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.08.2025 Maninder Singh …Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has approached by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.54 dated 12.05.2025 under Sections 21 (b) and 27 (a) of NDPS, 1985 (Sections 61 and 85 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Amritsar..

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that police while patrolling on 12.05.2025, saw a young man going on foot towards Ajnala road side. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and took out heavy item from the right pocket of the trouser and threw it on the ground and started walking towards vacant place. On suspicion, he was stopped. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Maninder Singh (petitioner). The police suspected some contraband in the item thrown by him. Thus, the same was searched. On conducting the search, 27 grams of heroin and Rs.1000/- as drug money was recovered from the same. The petitioner failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. The petitioner approached the learned Special Court at Amritsar, praying for grant of bail. However, on hearing, the same was declined vide order dated 01.08.2025. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the case of the prosecution, while on patrolling on the search of the petitioner, 27 grams of herioin had been allegedly recovered from the personal search of the petitioner. He submitted that admittedly the recovery has been effected from the personal search of the petitioner and there is violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that no independent witness has been joined till date. Thus, it is apparent that the recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he was not involved in any other case. He submits that even otherwise the alleged recovery is non commercial quantity of heroin and thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is also not attracted. He has thus submitted that the false implication of the petitioner is writ large and hence he deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that on the personal search of the petitioner, 27 grams of heroin has been recovered from the petitioner. He submits that the same is a non commercial quantity. On instructions, he has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the case is under investigation.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is admitted fact that the alleged recovery is of 27 grams of heroin which is a non commercial quantity. The petitioner is behind bars since 12.05.2025.

As per counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to b