IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 11.02.2026 Sona Singh @ Chhotu ........Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T, Chandigarh .........Respondent CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present Mr.Prince Srangal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh with Mr. Dixit Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent-UT, Chandigarh.

***

SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.10 dated 14.04.2025, under Section 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Crime, U.T, Chandigarh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that co-accused Navneet Kaur and Balkar Singh were arrested and 35.17 gms Heroin and an electric weighing scale were recovered from them respectively. During investigation, many other co-accused were arrested and different recoveries at different places were made from them. Present petitioner is alleged to have got recovered drug money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- from his house.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely involved in this case; no contraband has been recovered from the petitioner and allegation is of recovery of Rs.5,00,000/-, stated to be drug money, from his house and it is yet to be proved during trial whether the same is proceeds of crime or not; that as per allegations the contraband which is stated to be supplied by him is recovered from different persons on different dates and from different places so that cannot be taken as commercial quantity; petitioner is in custody for the last nine months; all co- accused, from whose possession contraband has been recovered, have been granted bail, hence, prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made.

4. Notice of motion.

5. In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent-State and produced the custody certificate of the petitioner along with reply by way of affidavit of Dhiraj Kumar, DANIPS DSP Crime, UT, Chandigarh, which are taken on record. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner by submitting that drug money of Rs.5,00,000/- has been recovered; petitioner is actively involved in drug trafficking and he has supplied contraband to other co-accused and a total quantity of 312 gms Heroin has been recovered from them; petitioner is also involved in one another case of similar nature, however, it is fairly admitted that the contraband is recovered from different persons, from different places and on different dates but the same were supplied by the present petitioner and prayer for dismissal of the petition is made.

6. Heard.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case; contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and the allegation against the present petitioner that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been recovered from him, which is stated to be drug money and regarding the contraband which is recovered from co-accused, same was recovered from different places, on different dates and from different persons; it is a matter of trial whether Rs.5,00,000/- recovered from petitioner is drug money or not; present petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025 i.e for the last nine months; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as measure of punishment as culpability of the accused will be decided at the final stage by the trial Court after appreciating the evidences adduced by both sides and it is trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to