IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 Date of decision: 04.02.2026 Narinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case bearing FIR No.79 dated 19.06.2025, registered under Section(s) 15(c) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural.

2. FIR has been registered in the present case on the statement of SI Harminder Singh. The brief facts of the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, are as under:-

“6. xxxxxxxxxxxxx the police party had laid naka in connection with patrolling and search of bad elements at Kharal Kalan one truck was found coming from Tanda which was intercepted and signaled to stop, however, truck driver instead tried to speed away and the truck was chased. The truck was finally made to stop and the truck driver disclosed his name as Jagjit Singh and the person sitting on the conductor seat disclosed his name as Rashpal Singh and on search the truck was found to be having four plastic bags and on weighing it came to be 25 Kgs each which on checking was found to be containing Poppy Husk, thus, in all 100 Kgs. Of Poppy Husk has been recovered.”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2025 and has been nominated as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, who was driving the offending vehicle. It is contended that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was used by the co-accused for the illegal transportation of contraband. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present case already stands concluded and no recovery of any nature whatsoever has been effected pursuant to the petitioner’s disclosure. Learned counsel submits that out of the total 20 prosecution witnesses cited, none have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude.

4. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and that the offending truck was owned by the petitioner, however, she does not dispute that the petitioner was nominated on the disclosure of the co-accused stated to be driving the said truck.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant petition with their able assistance.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the period of actual custody already undergone by him coupled with the fact that arguable issues arise regarding the petitioner’s involvement and further bearing in mind that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time, I deem it fit to allow the instant petition.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

04.02.2026 JUDGE

Mangal Singh