IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

331 CRM-M-54030-2025 Date of decision: 03.02.2026 Parminderpreet Singh @ Baia ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Balwant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. By virtue of the second petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No. 58 dated 05.05.2022 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 21(C), 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Mohkampura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, has prayed for grant of bail.

2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

On 05.05.2022 based on a chance recovery, Police team headed by Inspector Shaminderjit Singh seized 270 grams of Heroin (contraband falls within ‘Commercial’ Quantity) from possession of a person who introduced himself as Parminderpreet Singh @ Baia (present petitioner), son of Umesh Kumar, resident of House No.897, Dimpe Wali Gali, Shant Nagar, Rayya, Amritsar. After the statutory formalities were complied with, FIR was lodged.

On culmination of investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court on 28.10.2022.

3. Petitioner/accused who was arrested on 05.05.2022 moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar. The same was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2022. The first bail petition filed by petitioner before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as no recovery has been effected from him. The Police team did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Further the falsity of the case set up by the prosecution is apparent from the fact that despite the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from busy public place but no efforts were made by IO to join any independent person as a ‘witness’ to the case proceedings.

Continuing further, learned counsel submits that on completion of investigation, challan was filed on 28.10.2022 and petitioner was charge- sheeted on 29.09.2023. Since the disposal of Ist petition, trial has proceeded on a snail’s pace and till date, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, thus, likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. Hence, further incarceration of petitioner in custody, would not serve any useful purpose and would also be violative of his Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Towards the end, learned counsel contends that petitioner, who has been in custody since 05.05.2022 deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour by extending him the concession of bail. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.

5. Status report dated 14.11.2025 by way of affidavit of Inspector Harparkash Singh, P.S. Mohkampura, Amritsar has been placed on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that contraband recovered from the petitioner is ‘Commercial Quantity’. In view of the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner, as per learned State counsel the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in the provision are satisfied. Further, the fact that he is involved in one another criminal case (FIR No.14 dated 07.02.2018 under Sections 379/411 IPC and Section 22 of NDPS Act), no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7. Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of Hon’ble Su