IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

223 CRM-M-23424-2025 Decided on : 21.01.2026 Bhinder Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Gurlal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name ofFIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station Bhinder Singh 129 24.07.2023 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 Bhikhi Mansa [S. 27 & 29 of NDPS Act added later on]

2. As per the case of the prosecution, there is recovery of 900 intoxicant tablets from the possession of the petitioner – Bhinder Singh, containing Tramadol Hydrochloride salt weighing 340 grams. On the subsequent disclosure statement of the petitioner, another accused, namely, Chhoti Kaur, was also involved in the case and recovery of 200 tablets of Tramadol were effected from her house.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that about 90 grams of salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride is found to be more than the threshold of 250 grams as per the NDPS Act, in the present case. Further submits that petitioner is a young man of the age of 28 years and except the present case, he has never been found indulged in any other similar activity, except some cases under the Excise Act. For the first time, he is facing proceedings under the NDPS Act, and thus, embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not be applied in the strict sense against him.

Moreover, petitioner has already remained inside jail for a period of more than 02 years and 05 months, whereas, till date, only 01 prosecution witness has been examined out of total cited 14 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, pending conclusion of the trial and adjudication of charges, petitioner cannot be subjected to prolonged pre-trial detention.

Attention is also drawn to the fact that co-accused ‘Chhoti Kaur’, who is almost on similar footings, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-26349-2025 (O&M), titled as “Chhoti Kaur v. State of Punjab”. Accordingly, on the ground of parity also, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 19.01.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. However, he is unable to refute the factual aspects of the case, which have been recorded here-above. Further, learned State counsel submits that a substantial recovery has been effected from the petitioner, containing salt of 340 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, which falls under the ‘commercial’ category. Thus, keeping in view the nature of offence and the substantial recovery of narcotic contraband, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail without first establishing his innocence.

However, he fairly conceded that except the present case, petitioner is not found indulged in any other similar activity under the NDPS Act. He is inside jail for 02 years, 05 months and 15 days, and till date, only 01 prosecution witness has been examined so far, out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses.

Besides, it has also been brought to the knowledge of this Court that earlier, petitioner had filed one petition, i.e., CRM-M-7607-2024, titled as, “Bhinder Singh v. State of Punjab”, however, same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 07.02.2025, by noticing the regular absence of the then representing counsel for the peti