IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16^th April, 2026 Dilpreet Singh @ Dil ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 20 dated 28.03.2024 registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 10, 11, 12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the allegations, on 28.03.2024, on receipt of written complaint from the office of the Commander, E Coy 71 Battalion/BSF, BOP Naushera Dhalla, District Tarn Taran with regard to the recovery of one Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle, 02 smart phones and 500 grams of heroin from some fields, the police party reached at the spot. It was informed that the suspected persons had managed to flee away from the fields on 27.03.2024. The recovered contraband and other case property were taken into possession by the police. During the course of investigation, the petitioner, who was in custody in some other case, suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he along with the co-accused Jodhbir Singh @Jodha was involved in the business of smuggling and sale of contraband. On 27.03.2024, on the request of Jodhbir Singh, he had dropped him near Rajatal Road across a drain. Two other motorcyclists were already present there. The accused Jodhbir Singh had taken his motorcycle and had told him that some packets of heroin were to be supplied through drones and he had sent the location of that spot. The petitioner further disclosed that he had dropped the co-accused at that spot and had come back and later on, he had come to know that one packet of heroin had fallen onto the ground via a drone on that day. On this information, accused Arjan Singh, Jodhbir Singh @ Jodha and Virender Singh were nominated as additional accused. The petitioner was joined in the investigation of this case and was formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him in some other case cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He had no connection with the alleged recovery. No recovery has been effected from his conscious possession. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as not even a single witness has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His prolonged incarceration is militating against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, gravity of the allegations levelled against him, he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The well settled proposition of law is 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; sev