CRM-M-18054-2026 Date of decision : 09.04.2026 Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present third petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.141 dated 24.08.2022, under Sections 22(C), 29/61/85 and 31 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 201 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the police while patrolling on 24.08.2022 when reached near Kartarpur bus stand, they saw two young man standing. They were having kit bag with them. On suspicion, both were stopped by the police and on asking, they disclosed their names to be Ajit Kumar (present petitioner) and Rupesh Kumar. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband in the kit bag being carried by them. The search of both the individuals and the kit bag carried by them was conducted. On conducting the search of Ajit Kumar, 500 gms of heroin was recovered, whereas from the search of left side of pocket of trouser of Rupesh Kumar, 120 gms of Ice was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same and thus, on the registration of the FIR, both were arrested. The investigation commenced and the samples were sent to FSL. During investigation, they made a disclosure statement about the petitioner as an accused. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. On framing the charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the learned Special Court at Jalandhar praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 17.08.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court twice praying for grant of bail by way of filing CRM-M-45969-2023 and CRM-M-21514-2024. The same were dismissed vide orders dated 20.09.2023 and 05.08.2024. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present third petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place from the allegedly bag having been carried by the petitioner. She has submitted that the alleged recovery is in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and as the conscious possession has not been proved, false implication of the petitioner is writ large. She has submitted that though the recovery is effected from the public place but no independent witness was joined. To buttress her arguments, she has contended that the petitioner is behind the bars from last more than 3½ years but till date, there is no progress in the trial. She has submitted that the fundamental right of speedy trial, is miserably defeated in the present case. She has submitted that though the petitioner is involved in 02 more cases, however, in one case, she has been acquitted and in one case, she is on bail. She has also submitted that co-accused, namely, Justine, has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-64119-2026. She thus, has prayed that the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

CRM-M-

4.

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner is 500 grams of Heroin which is commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. He has contended that from co-accused, 120 grams of ice i.e. methamphetamine was recovered which is also commercial in nature. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing