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

214 CRM-M-9807-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.04.2026 Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. J. S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, 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 in case bearing FIR No. 446 dated 09.10.2024, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.11.2025.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 09.10.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner along with co-accused Veer Kaur, Gurmail Singh @ Gola, Satnam Singh @ Satti and Baljinder Singh @ Kaka was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 900 loose intoxicant tablets was effected from their joint conscious possession. On personal search of the petitioner, another recovery of 10 loose intoxicant tablets was also effected. Since they could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in their possession the recovered drugs, they were formally arrested at the spot. As per FSL, the recovered tablets were found to be containing Alprazolam. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with 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 was planted upon him and co- accused. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since long. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only one out of total twelve prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.

4. Status report and the custody certificate of the petitioner 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 as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband had been recovered from him, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against him. The petitioner may abscond or involve in committing similar offences again, if extended benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the co-accused was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband on 09.10.2024. Though, the allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against the petitioner, 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 take considerable time as a substantive number of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner has remained in custody since long. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fetter