IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Satpal Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition is the second attempt, which has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.84 dated 11.07.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura Khan, District Faridkot.

2. Vider order dated 22.07.2025 earlier passed by this Court, the petitioner was afforded the concession of interim regular bail, which reads thus:

“CRM-26869-2025 Application for placing on record the zimni orders, pursuant to order of the preceding date, is allowed. The same are taken on record.

Registry to paginate the paper-book accordingly.

CRM-M-34924-2025

1. Present petition, is the second attempt by the petitioner before this Court for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.84 dated 11.07.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura Khan, District Faridkot.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of consciously possessing 700 intoxicant tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride with total weight of 278.054 grams which falls under the commercial quantity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery, as alleged in the prosecution case, has been effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that there was 08 days inordinate delay in sending the sample to FSL. Learned counsel has further argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with which vitiates the prosecution case. Learned counsel has further referred, in extenso, to the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, especially orders 17.08.2023, 12.09.2023, 26.10.2023, 14.11.2023, 05.12.2023, 20.12.2023, 12.01.2024, 01.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 14.03.2024, 04.04.2024, 26.04.2024, 05.06.2024, 17.07.2024, 07.08.2024, 19.09.2024, 30.10.2024, 19.02.2025, 28.03.2025, 30.04.2025 and 16.05.2025 respectively; to argue that there is delay in culmination of the trial and the same is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner is not entitle to the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of contraband of commercial quantity and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 is attracted. Learned State counsel has further submitted that as per the information available with him, no other FIR (including under NDPS Act) has been registered against the petitioner. He has, accordingly, entreated for dismissal of the instant petition.

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 11.07.2022 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 27.07.2023. 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, which primarily involved official/police witnesses, but the entire prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, whether mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act have been complied with or not & the weighta