IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2026 Makhan Singh ........Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Amarinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.66 dated 03.07.2020, under Section 22,25 (lateron added Section 29) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely involved in this case as he has nothing to do with the present case; he was involved on the basis of disclosure statement of one person namely Sunny; he is not named by the co-accused that the contraband is to be supplied to him; the co-accused from whose possession the contraband was recovered already granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2023, passed in CRM-M-63157-2023 and placed on record a copy of said order; that the present petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year and trial will taken sufficient time to conclude, therefore, prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made.

3. In response, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab and opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the present petitioner is involved in four other cases of similar nature and a huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the co- accused which is to be supplied/procured by the present petitioner and one of the present accused is relative of the present petitioner.

4. Status Report by way of affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendentof Police, Sub Division Tapa, District Barnala and Custody certificate of petitioner filed by learned State counsel in Court today are taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. Reply perused. Para nos.5 and 6 of the Status Report are reproduced as under:-

“5. Role of the Petitioner: That the role attributed to the present petitioner is that of a conspirator under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The investigation indicates that the petitioner was part of the supply chain and was involved in facilitating procurement and distribution of psychotropic substances. Though no physical recovery was affected from the petitioner, his role is established through the conspiracy angle, which does not require physical possession of contraband. The petitioner acted in concert with the main accused and shared common intention and knowledge regarding the illegal trade of intoxicant tablets. His involvement was prior to the recovery and contributed to the commission of the offence. That during interrogation of the co accused Humesh Kumar and Baljit Singh suffered disclosure statement to the effect that they used to buy intoxicating tablets from Munesh Kumar r/o Loni Pushta at 1000 to 1200 Rs per box. That they were supposed to deliver the present consignment to present petitioner Makhan Singh, who is relative of co accused Baljit Singh, at higher prices. Thus, the acts attributed to the petitioner were deliberate and knowing, aimed at furthering the object of the conspiracy. The material on record prima facie establishes his complicity in the offence.

6. Evidence against the Petitioner: That the evidence against the petitioner consists of material collected during investigation, including disclosures of co-accused, chain of events establishing conspiracy, and corroborative circumstances. The prosecution case does not rest on a single piece of evidence but on cumulative material indicating involvement of the petitioner. The recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, the disclosures connecting the petitioner to the supply network, and the continuation of criminal conspiracy collectively constitute prima facie evidence. At the stage of bail, meticulous examination of evidence is neither required nor permissible. The evi