IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 07.04.2026 MANJIT SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA (cid:1)

Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the third petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.49 dated 20.03.2024 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station STF Mohali, District STF Wing. His previous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated on 26.05.2025 and 02.09.2025.

2. As per the allegations, on 20.03.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused Balwinder Singh was involved in the sale of intoxicant tablets and at that point of time, they were going from Village Jodhpur to Barnala by Khuddi Kalan on a motorbike for supplying intoxicant tablets to their customers. It was further informed that they could be apprehended with huge quantity of tablets. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which immediately rushed to the informed place and apprehended the petitioner and the co-accused. 800 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol were recovered from their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the Police. As the petitioner and the co-accused failed to produce any document qua ownership of the vehicle, the same was also taken into the custody. On interrogation, the petitioner and co-accused suffered disclosure statement admitting their involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

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 is in custody since 20.03.2024. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future since only 05 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The previous two petitions as filed by him had been dismissed as withdrawn. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a ground to move for bail afresh. The co-accused has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are attracted in this case. The present petition being a successive one is not maintainable. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2024. The trial has not progressed much after disposal of his previous petitions. It is well-settled law that the Court, while considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened, etc. H