IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Yograj Singh @ Yoga @ Garry ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2-CBI.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.61 dated12.06.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) & Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sadar, District Gurdaspur. 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 15 grams of Heroin, allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that drug money of Rs.54,00,000/- has already been recovered in the FIR in question alongwith illegal weapons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was initially arrested on 16.06.2023. 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 out of total 28 prosecution witnesses 10 have been examined till date. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years, 3 months and 19 days. 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 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 14.10.2025 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 16.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 07.12.2023. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited and 10 have been examined till date. 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. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 14.10.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 3 months and 19 days, & is shown to be involved in 7 more FIRs. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. 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 Al