IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 CRM-M-1055-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Razak Ali ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 46 dated 01.03.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Ropar, District Ropar (Rupnagar). His previous petition was filed for grant of interim bail on medical grounds but the same was dismissed, vide order dated

31.10.2025.

2. As per allegations, on 01.03.2025, on the basis of a secret information to the effect that the petitioner, who was involved in sale of narcotic substances and was roaming in the vicinity of the Forest Department office and could be apprehended with contraband, a raiding party was formed. He was apprehended and 11 intoxicant injections of Buprenorphine having 2 ml each and 3 injections of Avil-VET 33 ml i.e. total 99 ml were recovered from his possession. He was formally arrested. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the psychotropic injections from co-accused Gurmeet Singh, who was also arrested on 24.03.2025. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offence.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The story put forth by the police party is concocted one. In fact, a false recovery was planted upon him. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with properly. Even otherwise, the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is marginally higher than the commercial quantity. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented before the Court. The trial is likely to take considerable time as none out of total 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2025. His involvement in other cases cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments cited as Amritpal Singh vs. State of Punjab : 2022 (3) Law Herald 1996, Karandeep Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab : 2021 (3) Law Herald 2230 and Mandeep Singh alias Lakhari vs. State of Punjab : 2022 (1) Law Herald 74, whereby the accused, from whom the contraband marginally above the commercial quantity was recovered, were granted concession of bail.

4. Reply and the custody certificate have been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents as well as the fact that commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from him, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2025. The quantity of the contraband recovered from him is marginally above than the commercial quantity. Though the allegations levelled against the petitioner make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of subject offences, however, on a perusal of the record, it is apparent that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future and it will t