244 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.6935 of 2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Ranjit Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. Gandharv Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

CRM-5275-2026 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-6935-2026

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.51, dated 21.04.2025, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 21.04.2025, saw a clean shaven person coming on the foot from Cheeka Road, who on seeing the police, got perplexed and threw a black polythene envelope taking out from the left pocket of his trouser. On suspicion, he was apprehended by the police party. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Ranjit Singh. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the black polythene envelope thrown by him and thus, search of the same was conducted. On conducting the search of the polythene bag, 30 loose tablets were recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of the FSL, the contraband recovered weighs 5.52 grams of Etizolam. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala praying for the grant of regular bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 23.07.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected from the public place, however no independent witness has been joined. He has submitted that there is a violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act in conducting the search. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 21.04.2025 however there is no material progress in the trial. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that on due compliance of provisions of NDPS Act, the contraband recovered in the present case weighing 5.25 grams of Etizolam, which is a commercial quantity and thus, the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act are attracted. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested on the spot on 21.04.2025. The recovery effected in the present case is 5.25 grams of Etizolam, which falls under the category of commercial quantity. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 09 months and 19 days as on 10.02.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case, how