234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.33498 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present :- Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Goria, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

*****

R AJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0164, dated 24.10.2024, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 24.10.2024, saw a person standing in front of the cremation ground. However, on seeing the police, he got perplexed and took out a polythene envelope from the right pocket of his trouser and threw it on the ground. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on asking, he disclosed his name to be Gurpreet Singh (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the envelope thrown by him and thus, the same was searched. On conducting the search of the polythene bag, 107 loose intoxicating tablets were recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. As per the report of the FSL, intoxicating tablets recovered were found to be containing Etizolam weighing 11.128 grams. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charge, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur praying for the grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 05.02.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected from the public place, however no independent witness has been joined. He has submitted that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act in conducting the search. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 24.10.2024, however the trial has not concluded so far. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case except the present case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the recovery has been effected on due compliance of provisions of NDPS Act. She has submitted that the recovered contraband weighs 11.128 grams of Etizolam, which is a commercial quantity and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses still remain to be examined. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged recovery in the present case has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is behind bars since 24.10.2024. The total recovery in the present case is 11.128 grams of Etizolam, which is a commercial quantity. Out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses still remain to be examined. Custody certificate produced would show that