120+235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 28, 2025 Balbir Singh @ Billa ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second 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.94 dated 09.06.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22, 29 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar (Rural).

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 21 boxes of intoxicant tablets containing 20 strips each (total 4200 intoxicant tablets, i.e., Tramadol) along with `2,000/- as drug money allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that somewhat similarly placed co-accused, namely, Rajan Masih has been afforded concession of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-44398-2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years.

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 27.10.2025 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 09.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 01.12.2023. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 03 have been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long time. It is not in dispute that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Rajan Masih has already been granted concession of regular bail vide judgment dated

21.08.2025. 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2023. However, keeping in view the extended custody of the petitioner for more than 01½ years and there being no substantial progress in the trial, this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan vveerrssuuss SSttaattee