IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61251-2025 Date of decision: 09.12.2025 SARABJIT SINGH @ SABHI ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. H.S. Bhogal, ADvocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.156 dated 26.06.2025 registered under Sections 22 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 26.06.2025 as per the prosecution, ASI Balwinder Kaur, along with her fellow police officials were on patrolling duty and on suspicion, they apprehended one-Jatinder Kumar @ Appo who was found in conscious possession of 283 loose intoxicant tablets.

Initially the FIR was registered against the said co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Jatinder Kumar @ Appo. He further submits that the alleged recovery of 110 loose intoxicant tablets and Rs.27,000/- drug money has been planted upon him. He further argues that till date the prosecution is not yet aware of the salt of alleged tablets as the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has not been received so far. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2022 and at this stage, learned counsel confines his prayer only for releasing the petitioner on interim bail till the receipt of FSL report. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a dicta of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in ‘Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others v. State of Punjab’, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953. It has also been argued that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. 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. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail He further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months, investigation is underway, FSL report is still awaited which is crucial to determine the applicability of stringent provisions of NDPS Act including commercial quantity threshold and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Keeping the petitioner in further detention till receiving the report of FSL would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, has held as under:

"5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions found that the question whether such substances/drugs are covered under the NDPS Act or not, or can be dealt with only under the D&C Act has been arising frequently in many cases. The consequences would be completely different if the substances were held to be within the purview of the D&C Act instead of the NDPS Act. The matter was, therefore, referred to a larger bench. Meanwhile, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

xx xx xx xx

53. Indeed the delay in testing the sample does result in prejudice to a