IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Milap Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 19.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0031 dated 26.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 25, 27(a) 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station State Special Operations Cell, District Intelligence Wind (CID), Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of Heroin alongwith an amount of Rs.42,00,000/-. As per the prosecution case, it was alleged that on 26.05.2025, on the basis of secret information, a police party apprehended accused Ajay Pal Singh and Hardeep Singh from a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB02CY6917 and recovered 2 kg 500 grams of heroin from their conscious possession. During the same operation, the petitioner namely Milap Singh was intercepted while driving a Fortuner vehicle bearing registration No.

₹

HR26DY5140, from whose possession an amount of 42,00,000/- along with an electronic currency counting machine was recovered which was suspected to be a drug money. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered and investigation ensued. The petitioner was arrested on

26.05.2025 and has remained in custody since then.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as no contraband has been recovered from him. Learned counsel has further iterated that the alleged amount belongs to his agriculturist father and is supported by J-Forms, bank statements, Jamabandi and loan documents. It is argued that Section 27-A of the NDPS Act has been wrongly invoked only to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. 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 a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has emphasized that an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- which is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is on account of the sale of the property and has no connection with any drug transaction. According to learned counsel, the separate recoveries attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused cannot be clubbed to bring the case within the ambit of commercial quantity. Learned counsel has emphasized that the prosecution case rests solely on suspicion as no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, mere recovery of money without supporting evidence of financing a drug network would not fall within the ambit of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other NDPS case. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 26.05.2025 and the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose particularly when the alleged recovery of contraband is not recovered from the petitioner and hence the rigors o