IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ravi ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Date of Uploading: 11.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.365 dated 11.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 1 kg. 300 grams of charas, in polythene, recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused, namely Ravi, when they were apprehended by the police in a Tempo bearing registration No.DL1VC-5703.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused is of 1 kg. 300 grams of charas, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 03.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 07.11.2025. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused is 1 kg. 300 grams of charas, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicat