IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Karanbir Singh alias Karanveer Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Reserved on: 19.11.2025 Date of decision: 02.12.2025 Date of Uploading : 02.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.50 dated 09.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b), 21(c) of the NDPS Act (Section

29 of NDPS Act later on) at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of Heroin from the petitioner and the co-accused. It was alleged in the FIR that when the Police party were on patrol at the T-Point on Ghorewal Road, Bhogpur, they noticed two individuals approaching. One of them carried a bag on his shoulder and the other was carrying a transparent polybag. The police signaled them to stop but upon seeing the police party both the men threw their respective bags to the ground and attempted to escape. They were, however, apprehended by the Police. On inspecting the bag discarded by accused Sukhpreet Singh, 500 grams of heroin was recovered while the transparent polybag thrown by the petitioner Karanbir Singh was found to contain 5 grams of heroin which led to the registration of the FIR in question. The petitioner was arrested on 09.05.2025 and has remained in custody since then.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has emphasized that only 5 grams of heroin is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner which is a small quantity under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. According to learned counsel, the separate recoveries attributed to the petitioner and the co- accused cannot be clubbed to bring the case within the ambit of commercial quantity. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, 2005(7) SCC 550, to contend that the recoveries from different accused cannot be clubbed in the absence of evidence of conspiracy. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 993, wherein it was held that suspicion alone cannot establish conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other NDPS case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 09.05.2025 and the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose particularly when the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of small quantity for which the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS do not apply. On the strength of aforesaid submission, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has referred to status report dated 14.10.2025 by way of affidavit of Rajiv Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Adampur, Jalandhar (Rural), relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:

That during patrolling duty on dated 09.05.2025 at about 8:20 PM at T- Point,