238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Sukhwinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms. Khwaish Kalra, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.21 dated 22.03.2025, registered under Sections 22(b), 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Bariwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 22.03.2025, the police party while on patrolling saw a young man coming on foot. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and tried to escape, however, he was overpowered by the police party. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Sukhwinder Singh (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, his search was conducted. On conducting search, 36 narcotic pills were recoverd from the pocket of his trouser. He failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same. Hence, he was arrested on the spot and the FIR was registered. The investigation commenced and recovered substance sent to the FSL lab. On receipt of the FSL report, the contraband recovered was found to be 6.804 grams of Etizolam. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the alleged recovery was effected from a public place, however, no independent witness has been joined. She submits that admittedly, the alleged recovery has been effected from his personal search, but there is a violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act. To buttress her arguments, she submits that the petitioner is a young boy, who has no criminal antecedents and thus, his false implication is writ large. She, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that on due compliance of the provisions of NDPS Act, the search was conducted and from the personal search of the petitioner, 36 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered. From the report of the FSL, the contraband recovered was found to be 6.804 grams of Etizolam, which is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. On instructions, he submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, one witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged recovery was effected from a public place and the same has been effected from the personal search of the petitioner as the contraband was recovered from the pocket of the trouser of the petitioner. Out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 01 witness has been examined. The custody certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 10 months & 17 days as on 10.02.2026. It further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the