229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54999-2025 Date of decision : 08.10.2025 Deepak @ Jatt .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present third petition praying for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.132 dated 23.9.2024 under Sections 18, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, during the pendency of the present trial.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 23.09.2024, the police party while on patrolling saw two boys coming on Activa bearing No.PB- 07-CA-3297. On seeing the police, they got perplexed and threw two bags they were carrying with them. On suspicion, they were stopped. The driver of the Activa, disclosed his name to be Amandeep Singh @ Kaka whereas, the person sitting pillion, disclosed his name to be Mandeep Singh. The bags threw by them were searched and the same were found to be carrying opium weighing 1.5 kg each and thus, in all 3 kgs of opium was recovered from both the bags. They failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same and thus, the FIR was registered and they were arrested on the spot. During investigation, they made a disclosure statement regarding the complicity of the petitioner and thus, he was also arrayed as an accused in the present case however, the petitioner was already in jail in FIR No.78 dated 18.06.2020, under Sections 18/29/85/61 of NDPS Act at P.S. Lalru. As he was arrested in the present case on the production warrant on 22.10.2024, he approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 04.11.2024. Being aggrieved, petitioner earlier approached this Court twice by way of filing CRM-M-55178-2024 and CRM-M-65626-2024 for grant of interim bail however, the same was partly allowed vide orders dated 07.11.2024 & 03.01.2025. Hence, this is the third petition filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him. He submits that admittedly, petitioner was behind bars on the date of the recovery of 03 kgs of opium effected from the co-accused. He submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused which is an inadmissible evidence. He further submits that once the petitioner was already behind bars, there was no occasion for him to be involved in the present case. He submits that in a premeditated manner, the investigating agencies have implicated the petitioner in the present case. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel however, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was in conspiracy with the co-accused and his complicity was established during the investigation. He further submits that the petitioner was behind bars on the date of the recovery of the contraband effected from the co-accused. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. He, on instructions, submits that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. It is submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner was 3 kgs of opium which is a commercial quantity and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the case. He thus, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted th