234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 28, 2025 Mandeep @ Dholu ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. K.S. Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

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.270 dated 03.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad.

2. The petitioner was afforded concession of interim regular bail vide order dated 29.07.2025, which reads thus:

“

1. 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.270 dated 03.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad.

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 the following contraband:

“(i) 152 strips (containing 15 tablets each i.e. total 2280 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 512 grams;

(ii) 50 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 500 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 107 grams and (iii) 75 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 750 tablets) of Tramadol, having total weight of 444 grams.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2024. 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 the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 09 months. 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 21.07.2025 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 14.10.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24.02.2025. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. The prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the shape of disclosure statement of one Vinod Kumar @ Bondi, who was in turn, arrayed as an accused on the disclosure statement of another co-accused, namely, Vinod alias Vilayati. 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. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the petitioner, especially the zimni orders dated 03.04.2025 & 17.05.2025, indicate that t