IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4554-2026 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 JARMANJIT SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. A.G. 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.232 dated 16.12.2023, registered under Sections 21- C, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 16.12.2023, SI Daljit Singh along with his fellow police officials had set up a Naka and on suspicion apprehended the petitioner and co-accused, who were travelling in a car and 1.5 kg of heroin alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- drug money was recovered from dashboard of car. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He further contends that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner as well as co-accused and nothing more is to be recovered.

The petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented; charges have also been framed and out of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He submits that co-accused Jaspreet Singh and Sonam Kaur have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2025 and 22.12.2025 in CRM-M-35129-2024 and CRM-M-60979-2025 respectively. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.

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. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that he alongwith other co-accused was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other 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 is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges have been framed and out of 18 prosecution witnesses none has been examined; co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till her guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incar