IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (210) CRM-M-61248-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Avtar Singh @ Kaka ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL):

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.44 dated 17.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), lateron added Section 27 of NDPS Act at Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 200 tablets of Alprazolam.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further submitted that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petition is non-commercial and therefore provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply. Learned counsel has further 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 about 6 months and 19 days. 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 06.11.2025 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 17.04.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on 15.09.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 28.07.2025. However, keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner for a period of 6 months and 19 days and no substantial progress in trial, this court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal