227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3210-2025 Date of decision : 06.11.2025 Maninder Singh @ Manna .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. N.S. Mahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.145 dated 08.12.2023, under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Nakodar, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 08.12.2023 saw two persons standing on the left side of the road. On seeing the police, they got perplexed. On suspicion, they were stopped by the police and were arrested by the police. On asking, they disclosed their names to be Sandeep and Maninder Singh (petitioner). They were suspected to be carrying some contraband. Thus, their search was conducted. On conducting the search of the right pocket of trousers of petitioner-Sandeep, 115 white coloured loose intoxicant tablets and from the right pocket of petitioner-Maninder Singh (petitioner), 120 loose white colour intoxicant tablets were recovered thus, total 235 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered. Both of them failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same. Thus, the FIR was registered and both the accused were arrested on the spot. The samples taken were sent to the FSL.

On receipt of the FSL, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. Petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 22.07.2024. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-37323-2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.08.2024. Hence, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present second petition for grant of regular bail.

3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from the personal search of the petitioner but there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He submits that though recovery has been effected from the public place however, no independent witness has been joined. He submits that though from the personal search of the petitioner, 120 loose intoxicating tablets were recovered which weighed 14.88 grams which is a non-commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is submitted that the similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by learned Judge, Special Court. It is submitted that petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest. However, there is no material progress in the trial thus, right of speedy trial has been defeated. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that both the accused were apprehended together and from conducting their search, total 235 loose tablets of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride were recovered which weighed 29.14 grams which is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section

37 of the NDPS Act attracted in this case. He on instructions, submits that out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner which shows that petitioner has undergone the actual sentence of 01 year, 02 months and 19 days as on 05.11.2025. It further reflects that petitioner is involved in 02 more cases, out of which, in one of the cases, he has been convicted however, he has completed his sente