IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 *****

CRM-M No.41963 of 2025 (O & M)

Date of decision : 4.9.2025 Gurpreet Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.73 dated 18.6.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 5500 intoxicant pills of tramadol hydrochloride IP 100 mg SR from a swift car bearing No.HR-66A-8458, of which, the petitioner and other co-accused were the occupants.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge thereof. Learned counsel has iterated that, in any case, the prosecution evidence is at the fag end, and thus, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the trial. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than

2 years. 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 has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.9.2025 in Court, 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 arrested on 18.6.2023 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 16.10.2023. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 7 have been examined and 6 have been given up till date. There is yet another aspect, nay vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence is at the fag end as only 2 prosecution witnesses are stated to have remained to be examined. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of about 10 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgme