222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 17, 2025 Shama ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Suneel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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.43 dated 01.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21/ 22/ 61/ 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, Punjab.

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 alleged recovery of 255 grams of intoxicant powder (Tramadol Hydrochloride)

from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2025. Learned counsel 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 has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 255 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. 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, she does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred 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 16.09.2025 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 01.03.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 28.08.2025. Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 255 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M- 36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM- M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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 16.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06 months and 13