214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhima @ Bhim Chand ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: December 11, 2025 Date of Uploading: December 11, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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.262 dated 25.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 21 kg Ganja from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed fresh Power of Attorney along with no objection from the previous counsel, and the same is taken on record.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2024. 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 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 21 kg. Ganja which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. 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. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.12.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

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 25.09.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 21.03.2025. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 21 kg. Ganja, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820- 2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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 evid