IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

234 *****

CRM-M No.68863 of 2025 Date of decision : 11.12.2025 Date of uploading : 11.12.2025 Krishan Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Payal, Advocate, for Mr. Sarthak Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, AAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.85 dated 28.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Dhaka, District Ludhiana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 220 intoxicant tablets containing salt Buprenorhpine Hydrochloride weighing 27.6 grams from the petitioner and 180 intoxicant tablets containing salt Buprenorhpine Hydrochloride weighing

21.96 grams from co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Krishan Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about

1½ year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.12.2025, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 28.06.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 27.08.2024. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 10.12.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 5 months and 10 days. In this view of the matter, rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal N