IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Satnam Singh @ Nishan Singh @ Shana ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 27.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, 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.59 dated 13.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 111 (2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 21-B, 22-C of NDPS Act (added later on) at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

2. As per the prosecution version, on receipt of a specific and credible secret information, ASI Balwinder Singh along with the police party held barricading at bridge drain, Kot Ise Khan. The petitioner with co- accused Sukhwinder Singh was allegedly apprehended while coming on foot. Upon seeing the police party, both the accused persons allegedly threw polythene packets taken out from their pockets. During the course of search and apprehension, recovery of 258 grams of heroin was effected from co-

accused Sukhwinder Singh whereas 195 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the polythene bag allegedly thrown by the petitioner. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of ruqa sent by the Station House Officer and further investigation was conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2025 and has remained in custody since then. After completion of investigation, the final report already stands presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

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 the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the FIR in question has been registered on the basis of alleged secret information and hence the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 of the NDPS have not been complied. Furthermore, there is clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the petitioner was neither informed of his legal right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer nor was any such officer called at the spot. Moreover, no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery and the FIR itself appears to be fabricated. 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 further submitted that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 13.04.2025 and the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose particularly when the alleged recovery of contraband is not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of n