IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-752-2026 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 RESHAM SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aiman J. Chisti, AAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.19 dated 12.03.2024, registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 473, 485, 201 IPC and Sections 341(2), 348 BNS at Police Station State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar, District Intelligence Wing (CID).

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 12.03.2024, Inspector Amandeep Singh along with his fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner and co-accused, who were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. Learned counsel contends that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected and nothing more is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the other co-accused persons have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 19.12.2025 in CRM-M-23196-2025 and CRM-M-48234-2025 respectively. The petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2024. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented, charges have also been framed. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date, as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has submitted that the recovery of alleged contraband effected from the petitioner in the present case falls under the commercial quantity. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 10 months; co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date; has clean antecedents, as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is a