239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 28, 2025 Prabhdeep Singh @ Peter ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (presence marked through video-conferencing).

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

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 bearing FIR No.49 dated 14.06.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 670 intoxicant tablets of white colour and 185 intoxicant tablets of orange colour (total 855 intoxicant tablets) from the petitioner and his co-

accused, namely, Rahul Kumar, while they were travelling on a motorcycle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was initially arrested in the FIR in question, on 14.06.2019, wherein, he was granted concession of interim regular bail, on 08.08.2019. The petitioner was required to surrender back on 22.03.2024, but could not do so on account of illness arising out of Covid. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 13.01.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner could not cause appearance before the concerned trial Court on account of circumstances beyond his control. Learned counsel has also argued that contraband alleged to be recovered from the petitioner is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man aged 26 years having no criminal antecedents and is the sole bread-earner of his family. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 27.08.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was initially arrested on 14.06.2019, wherein, he was granted concession of interim regular bail on 08.08.2019. The petitioner had to surrender back on 22.03.2024, but he did not do so on account of his illness due to Covid. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 13.01.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. It is not in dispute that contraband allegedly involved in the instant case is of 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 custody certificate dated 27.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period 09 months and 13 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumst