IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 06.04.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.04.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 07.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

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 12.09.2024 registered under Section 21(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka. His previous petition bearing CRM-M No.41207-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

31.10.2025.

2. As per the allegations, on 12.09.2024, on receipt of a secret information, a police party headed by ASI Amrik Singh had reached at the informed place and apprehended the present petitioner as well as co-accused Gursewak Singh, Balwinder Singh and Vikram Singh, who disclosed their names and particulars. Accused Balwinder Singh and Gursewak Singh were carrying black colour polythene bag in their hands. On conducting search of the bag held by Gursewak Singh 432 grams of heroin was recovered from the same, whereas drug money to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- was recovered from the polythene bag found in custody of the co-accused Balwinder Singh. They along with the present petitioner and co-accused Vikram Singh were taken into custody and were formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The recovery of any contraband, if effected, was in fact from the possession of co-accused Gursewak Singh and the alleged drug money was recovered from co-accused Balwinder Singh and not from the petitioner. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused Balwinder Singh has been extended benefit of regular bail. On parity, he too deserves to be released on bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered along with the drug money in this case, the petitioner 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 urged 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 was apprehended along with the abovenamed co-accused. The recovery of 432 grams of heroin and drug money to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been effected from the possession of the co-accused which is presumed to be in joint conscious possession of the present petitioner as well. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against the petitioner as well, however, he has been in custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as none out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined. It has been well settled now that even a perso