268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61445-2025 Date of decision : 10.11.2025 Gurwinder Singh @ Geja .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.71 dated 18.06.2024, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act, added lateron), registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 18.06.2024, the police party while on patrolling, saw a person on the street of the village. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and threw a black coloured polythene packet on the ground. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on asking, he disclosed his name to be Gurwinder Singh @ Geja (Petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the polythene packet thrown by him. The same was searched and on conducting the search, 100 loose intoxicating tablets were recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same. Thus, FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of FIR, the investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receiving the FSL report, the intoxicating tablets were found to be containing Etizolam weighing 9.3 grams. On presentation of challan, charges were framed and the trial commenced. The petitioner approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined by the trial Court vide order dated 22.08.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness was joined by the investigating agency. He submits that compliance of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act was mandatory in conducting the search, however, there is violation of the same. He submits that recovery of 100 intoxicating tablets has been planted upon the petitioner. He further submits that even though the petitioner was convicted in one more case, however, his sentence has already been suspended. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovered contraband found to be containing 9.3 grams of Etizolam, is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.

5. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2024. Till date, only 02 witnesses have been examined. The custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 10 months and 24 days as on 07.11.2025. Though petitioner is involved in one another case, however, his sentence has already been suspended in the same.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental right of every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260 this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expresse