IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:06.02.2026 Rajinder Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.85 dated 15.03.2023, registered under Sections 18, 25, 29 and 31 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, on the allegations that on 15.03.2023, a secret information was received to the effect that petitioner along with co- accused Afzal Khan @ Mohd Afjal was involved in the business of sale of opium in the area of Zirakppur, Chandigarh, Mohali and Ambala and could be apprehended with huge quantity of contraband on the same day, as he was present at a particular place, with the same. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed, which raided the informed place and apprehended the petitioner along with co-accused Afzal Khan @ Mohd. Afjal in a car bearing registration No.CH-01-CE-2240. On conducting search, 3 kgs of opium was recovered from the car whereas 2 kgs of opium and drug money of Rs.11 lakhs had recovered from the house of co-accused Afzal Khan @ Mohd. Afjal in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Petitioner got recovered 2 kgs of opium and drug money of Rs.6 lakhs. The petitioner along with co-accused is now facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since 15.03.2025. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 04 out of 17 witnesses have been examined so far. He is ready to abide the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioner by submitting that there are serious and specific allegations against him. The recovered contraband is of commercial quantity. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

4. This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is well-settled law that the Court, while considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened, etc. However, at the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor to be considered while deciding whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with an offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be satisfied. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case as the accusations pertain to the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the petitioner as well as from the co-accused.

6. In the instant case, contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from him. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 02 years, 10 months and 14 days. Only 04 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution till now. Obviously, the petitioner is not required for further investigation. It is true that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reli