IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 7^th April, 2026 Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 85 dated 18.08.2024 registered under Sections 21 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act were added later on) at Police Station Kulgarhi District Ferozepur. His previous petition bearing CRM-M- No. 35806-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

12.11.2025.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 18.08.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner and co-accused Vishal @ Shelly, who were brothers, were engaged in the business of smuggling of heroin and that they had taken a house on rent in village Nawan Purba and were coming from there in a car while carrying contraband and could be apprehended. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was immediately formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended the petitioner and the co-accused. The recovery of 01 kg 05 grams of heroin and cash amount of Rs. 12,90,000/- was effected from a bag which was carried by accused Vishal @ Shelly. On conducting personal search of the petitioner, one .315 bore pistol and 07 live cartridges were recovered. The recovered contraband and articles were taken into possession by the police. The accused Vishal suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which Sukhwant Singh was nominated as an accused. The vehicle recovered from the petitioner and co-accused was found to be registered in the name of one Ravi Kumar. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He has been in custody for a period of over 01 year and 07 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to be found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband, illicit weapon, ammunition as well as cash amount of Rs. 12,90,000/-. It is a matter of evidence as to whether, the recovered money was drug money or not? Though the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the aforementioned offences as against the petitioner, however, he has been in custody for a period of more than 01 year, 07 months and 18 days. Only 03 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, it is apparent that the chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly.