IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 Manjinder Singh @ Kalu ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. R.D.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.24 dated 04.03.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 29 and 27-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Mehna, District Moga.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 04.03.2025, ASI Manpreet Kaur, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended the petitioner, who was found in conscious possession of 310 loose intoxicating tablets (Etizolam), 5 gram of heroin along with cash amount of Rs.4710/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 17 prosecution witnesses but none has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Baljit Singh @ Mintu @ Baljit Gill Vs. State of Punjab’ passed in CRM-M-15588-2024, decided on 30.08.2024, whereby, it was held that quantity of manufactured drug i.e. Etizolam is not a hard drug like heroin, charas, opium or other synthetic drugs and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and while referring to the status report already filed in the matter, he has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as he was apprehended at the spot with heavy quantity of alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case it transpires that the recovered contraband was analyzed by the FSL and it was found to be containing the salt – Etizolam. While deciding a regular bail petition in a case involving 7.2g of Etizolam, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Baljit Singh @ Mintu @ Baljit Gill vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-15588 of 2024 decided on

30.08.2024, has opined as follows:

“26. Even in the present case, the quantity of a manufactured drug i.e. Etizolam tablets and it is not a hard drug like heroin, charas, opium or other synthetic drugs, thus petitioner is entitled to bail given the ratio of Chitra Basu’s case(supra).”

6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year; 01 month; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining h