IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.02.2026 Harjinder Singh @ Gabbar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, 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.137, dated 19.07.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act (offence punishable under Section 29 was added and Section 21 of the NDPS was deleted lateron), at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, on the allegations that on 19.07.2023, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner, who was indulged in the business of selling heroin, could be apprehended with huge quantity of contraband on the same day, as he was present at a particular place, with the same, if raid was conducted. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed, which raided the informed place and apprehended the petitioner while carrying a black coloured polythene bag in his right hand. After conducting search, recovery of 20 strips of intoxicating tablets each strip containing 50 tablets totaling 100 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg. Covidol-100 was effected from the same. The petitioner was formally arrested and suffered a disclosure statement on 21.07.2023 to the effect that he had taken the recovered contraband from co-accused Manav. Co-accused Manav was nominated as an accused as such. 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 21.07.2023. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. 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. There are chances of the petitioner's absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. 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.

6. In the instant case, contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 02 years, 01 month and 10 days. Only 03 out of 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution till date. Obviously, the trial will ta