##PAGE1##

237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.12581 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

Date of Uploading: 01.04.2026

Manjit Singh @ Mani …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

*****

Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and

Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (read with under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.57 dated 14.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 21-C, 23, 25, 27-A, 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sadar

Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the recovery

YAG DUTT

2026.04.01 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.12581 of 2026 -2-

of 7 Kgs. of heroin along-with drug money of Rs.36,00,000/-, one country- made .32 bore pistol and five live cartridges from the petitioner. The contraband alleged to have been recovered is indubitably commercial in

nature.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2024. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 11 months. Thus,

regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 in

Court, 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 14.04.2024 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the Challan was presented on 01.10.2024 Total 42 prosecution witnesses have been cited and charges have not been framed against the petitioner till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar

YAG DUTT

2026.04.01 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No.12581 of 2026 -3-

give rise to debatable issues 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 indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution

evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 years, 11 months and 07 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of