IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

233 CRM-M-45640-2025 Decided on : 01.12.2025 Arshdeep Singh alias Arshi . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station Arshdeep 115 16.06.2024 21-B, 21(C), 29 of NDPS Islamabad Amritsar Singh alias Act, 1985 & 25 of Arms Arshi Act, 1959

2. As per the prosecution, 50 grams of heroin was recovered from co-accused – Daljit Kaur, and upon her disclosure statement, the present pe- titioner was nominated in the case. On being arrested, 200 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of peti- tioner’s disclosure statement, co-accused Gurbax Singh @ Lala was ar- rested, from whose possession 2 kg of heroin, 1 kg of “Ice” and 500 grams of material used for manufacturing “Ice” were recovered. Further disclosure statement of said co-accused led to arrest of yet another accused – Ravinder Singh @ Chitti, from whom one .32 bore pistol along with two live car-

tridges were recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the recovered contraband from the petitioner is only 200 grams of heroin, which is 50 grams less to the maximum of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2024; charges were framed on 10.09.2025; however, out of total 26 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been exam- ined till date. Thus, learned counsel submits that petitioner cannot be forced to remain inside jail without even producing the prosecution witnesses in the Court at the shortest possible time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the peti- tioner is also involved in another case under the NDPS Act but no recovery was effected from him therein and he has already been granted bail in that case. Mere pendency of another FIR cannot justify prolonged incarceration where trial is not proceeding. Therefore, prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on regular bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 29.11.2025 in Court today. Same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been supplied to the petitioner’s counsel.

6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the petitioner is a member of an active drug trafficking gang, smuggling contraband across the border. Further submits that since the recovery from co-accused is of commercial quantity, petitioner does not deserve concession of bail at this stage without establishing his innocence.

However, on Court’s query, learned State counsel admits that none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and the peti- tioner has suffered incarceration for approximately 01 year, 04 months and 05 days. It is further clarified that in the other NDPS case registered against him, the petitioner is presently on bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ma-

terial on record.

8. Admittedly, the recovery attributable to the petitioner is 200 grams of heroin, which is 50 grams less to the commercial quantity and thus does not invite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2024, i.e., for about 01 year, 04 months and 05 days, and despite filing of challan and framing of charges, not even a single witness has been examined out of the total cited 26 prosecution witness. Therefore, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable ti