IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 *****

CRM-M No.44691 of 2025 Date of decision : 4.9.2025 Gori Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, 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.165 dated 15.11.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15(c)/27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Nahianwala, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 180 Kgs. of poppy husk allegedly recovered on 15.11.2022 from Gurjit Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, while the petitioner and two other co-accused fled away from the spot, i.e. near Poultry farm on the road leading from village Jizida to Khemukna.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.4.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that there are as many as 25 prosecution witnesses and culmination of the trial will take its own time. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not been arrested from the spot in question. Learned counsel has further argued that somewhat similarly place co-accused Gurcharan Singh @ Lacka has been extended the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2024 passed in CRM-M No.3295 of 2024 and another co-accused Tota Singh has been extended the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2025 passed in CRM-M No.14122 of 2025. 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 FIR in question pertains to recovery of 180 Kgs. of poppy husk which is a commercial quantity and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.9.2025 as also reply in Court and has relied upon the involvement of the petitioner in 3 other cases, which are taken on record.

Thus, he sought for dismissal of the petition in hand.

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 24.4.2024 and is in continuous custody since then. Total 26 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is indubitable that culmination of the trial will take its own time. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall essentially 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 This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No