IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.12.2025 Lovejit Singh @ Rahul ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Malkeet Devgan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The present petition has filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.52 dated 29.03.2024, registered under Sections 21(C), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act (offence under Section 201 IPC was added lateron), at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. As per the allegations on 29.03.2024, on the basis of secret information, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and stopped the while coloured boleno car bearing registration No.PB-02- ED-7097, which was occupied by three persons. On asking, the driver of the said car disclosed his name as Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan and the remaining two persons sitting therein, disclosed their names as Charanjit Singh @ Charan and Harmandeep Singh @ Harman @ Happy. On conducting search, one country made pistol .32 bore having three live cartridges was recovered from the custody of Gagandeep Singh. One black coloured heavy polythene envelop was recovered from the dashborad of the car and on checking the same, contraband heroin was found to be kept therein. On measuring the weight, it was found to be 1 kg and 500 grams. The recovered contraband were taken into possession by the police officials. The above named accused were formally arrested. Accused Gagandeep Singh suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2024. 800 grams of heroin was recovered from him. Investigation now stands concluded and the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He has clean antecedents. However, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. No prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while placing on record custody certificate of the petitioner, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Huge quantity of the contraband was recovered from the petitioner. The recovery effected from the co-accused is also of commercial quantity. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of heroin and is also alleged to have supplied 3 kgs. of contraband to co-accused. The recovered contraband was of huge quantity. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

7. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.

(MANISHA BATRA)

09.12.2025 JUDGE harjeet