235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 08.04.2026 Manpreet Singh …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL *****

Present:- Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.193 dated 19.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21(C)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 256 grams of heron, recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is of 256 grams of heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that co- accused, namely, Arshdeep Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in CRM-M No.12278 of 2026. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 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, the petitioner 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 07.04.2026, in the Court today, 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 19.08.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and Challan has been presented on 06.02.2026. Total 11 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 256 grams of heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019 decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 in