IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Date of uploading: 01.04.2026 Chamkaur Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.261 dated 18.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving recovery of 14 bottles of intoxicant syrup labelled Wings Pharma (each bottle containing 100 ML each and intoxicant powder (heroin) weighing 90 grams, which were allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2025. Learned 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 counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 9 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, he 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 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 18.06.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 10.12.2025. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only one has been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that 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. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 9 months and 13 days & is stated to be involved in one more FIR/case. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-20