IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Amardeep Singh @ Mota ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Ripudaman Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0063 dated 26.10.2022 under Sections 21(C),29/61/85 of NDPS Act, Sections 25,27,54,59 of Arms Act, 1959 (Section

489 IPC added later on) registered at P.S Kacha Pacca, District Tarn Taran.

2. Case that has been set up against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused Ram Singh (since granted concession of bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide CRM-M-63615-2024) was caught red handed while keeping in their possession 285 grams heroin (marginally more than commercial quantity).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Statutory formalities were complied with by the police team. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was also not issued before the petitioner was subjected to his personal search. Further, no independent witness was joined by the prosecution to prove the alleged recovery. Second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace for out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses, only 07 have been examined. Thus, likelihood of completion of trial in near future is quite remote. It is further the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner, who has been in custody since 26.10.2022 deserves to be dealt with leniency and that simply because he is involved in three other cases of like nature, cannot be a ground in itself to deny the concession of bail. He has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-63615-2024 vide which co-accused, who is similarly situated as present petitioner was extended the concession of bail. It has thus been prayed that in view of submissions advanced, similar treatment be meted out to the present petitioner. He has placed reliance in this regard upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases.

4. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of bail, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of contraband. He is involved in three other cases of like nature. He further contends that in the light of contraband so recovered from the possession of petitioner and co-accused, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would apply which bar grant of bail. If extended the concession of bail, likelihood of him committing the same offence yet again as also fleeing from the process of justice, cannot be ruled out. He thus prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the recovered with their able assistance.

6. Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024 decided on 23.04.2024, it was held as under:-

“The allegations against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 and 2022. The third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 yea