IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 01.12.2025 Harpreet Singh @ Ricky ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Ms. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.57 dated 12.04.2020, registered under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 12.04.2020, SI Amritpal Singh along with his fellow police officials was on curfew duty and on the basis of secret information, the present petitioner alongwith co-accused -Swaranjit Singh @ Sunny and Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi were apprehended and from their possession, 255 grams of heroin, one computer scale, currency notes of Rs.15,770/-, ten empty plastic envelops and car bearing No.PB-10-CQ-7071 make Innova, in which they were present, were recovered. Hence, the present FIR.

3. As a matter of fact, earlier the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2020. However, on 06.01.2024, he failed to appear before the learned trial Court, and resultantly, his bail was cancelled, bail bonds were forfeited followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. He was later arrested in some other case and was arrested in the present case on 27.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by co-ordinate bench and he was regularly appearing before the learned trial court. However, on 06.01.2024, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court as he was in custody in FIR no. 161 dated 29.12.2023, and thus his bail was cancelled by the learned trial court. She further submits that the absence of petitioner was unintentional and on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.03.2024, the counsel for the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court for issuance of production warrants of the petitioner as he was lodged in Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case but he was not produced before the learned trial Court. On merits, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the recovery of 255 grams of heroin is marginally above the commercial quantity and the contraband was weighed alongwith polythene bag and if the weight of the polythene bag is subtracted, the recovery will fall under non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has been in custody in the present case for more than 01 year and 03 months. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have been framed, as such trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Status report has already been filed. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has submitted that the recovery of alleged contraband in the present case falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in one more case meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has been in custody in the present case for more than 01 year