213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 MAVEEN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.64 dated 04.06.2025, under Sections 20, 27(A) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 04.06.2025, they saw a Mahindra Bolero carrier coming in which two persons were travelling. On seeing the police party, they got perplexed. The driver of the vehicle stopped and parked it, after which both the driver and the person seated on the conductor’s seat fled towards a katcha passage through the fields. The police on suspicion, surrounded them and they were apprehended. The driver threw polythene envelope on road side. On asking, the driver of the car disclosed his name to be Tek Chand whereas the person sitting on the conductor seat disclosed his name to be Maveen (present petitioner). On suspicion, polythene bag which was thrown by the driver was checked. On conducting the search of the same, 1 kg 10 grams of Charas was recovered. They failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same and thus, they were arrested at the spot. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. He approached the learned Judge, Special Court, Pathankot for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Pathankot declined the bail application vide order dated 10.07.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place, however, no independent witness has been joined and the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. He further submits that even otherwise the alleged recovery was of 1Kg 10 grams of charas, which is marginally above the commercial quantity. He further submits that petitioner is behind bars since 04.06.2025 and he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was arrested at the spot as he was travelling in the same car along with the co-accused who had thrown a polythene envelope from which contraband, weighing 1 kg 10 grams of Charas, was recovered. He further submits that the alleged recovery falls within the category of commercial quantity. Thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. He, on instructions, submits that charges have been framed and out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.

5. Heard.

6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged recovery was effected from the public place. The petitioner was allegedly travelling in the car along with the co-accused. The recovery is 1Kg 10 grams of charas is marginally above the commercial quantity. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 07 months and 20 days as on 27.01.2026 and he