IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 *****

CRM-M No.16569 of 2026 Date of decision : 16.4.2026 Date of uploading : 16.4.2026 Vikram Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 3rd 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.68 dated 17.6.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Mehtpur, District Jalandhar.

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 150 loose intoxicant tablets (As per Chemical Examiner Report containing 14.25 grams of etizolam salt) was allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 17.6.2024 near village Umrewal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been 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 about 01 year and 3 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 restricted 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 13.4.2026 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 17.6.2024, whereinafter, he was granted the concession of interim bail vide order dated 23.7.2024 in view of the law laid down by this Court in ‘Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi v. State of Punjab, 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953’. After receiving the Chemical Examiner report, Challan was presented before the trial Court on 13.2.2025 and the petitioner was taken into custody. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 2 have been examined and 01 has been given up till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn on 4.11.2025 and the last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn on 27.2.2026. However, keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner and pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely