IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Date of uploading: 16.04.2026 Ranjit Singh @ Jeet ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.60 dated 18.04.2025, under Sections 21- C/27-A/29 of the NDPS ACT 1985 & Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 & Sections 212/216 of BNS 2023, registered at Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving ₹

2.019 kg of heroin alongwith 7 pistols alongwith 7 cartridges and 2 lakhs drug money, which were allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-

accused namely Jatinder Singh and Karan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the prime basis of involving the petitioner into the FIR in question is his confessional statement made in another FIR, which is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been scrupulously complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 11 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, he 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 15.04.2026 in Court, 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 18.04.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 22.07.2025. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only two have been examined partly till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that 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 indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 15.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 23 days & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman