IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-73769-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 Ninder ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. I.S.Deol, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.146, dated 06.10.2025, under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1982, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab.

2. 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 further submits that challan in the present case is yet to be presented and the contents of the alleged 70 loose intoxicant tablets recovered from the handkerchief thrown by the petitioner are yet to be ascertained. Even otherwise, the alleged recovery of heroin recovered is only 16 grams and 9 mg, which is non- commercial. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since

06.10.2025 and trial is likely to take some time to conclude.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record, to demonstrate that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 05 days. He seeks dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and 09 other cases under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the FSL report of loose intoxicant tablets is awaited.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/nine more cases under the NDPS, reference is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P and Another 2012(2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

6. So far as recovery of 70 loose intoxicating tablets are concerned 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 Vs. 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 an alleged offender as t