218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66529-2025 Date of decision : 12.02.2026 Satpal Singh @ Sonu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.49 dated 17.02.2025, under Sections 21(C) of the NDPS Act and Section 27 of the NDPS Act added later on, registered at Police Station ANTF District Bathinda, Punjab.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the police while on patrolling on 17.02.2025, saw two persons coming on the Activa. On seeing the police, they got perplexed. The police gave signal to stop, however, they tried to escape. On suspicion, both were apprehended. On asking, Activa- driver, disclosed his name as Sukhmander Singh @ Bhoosi and the person sitting pillion, disclosed his name as Satpal Singh @ Sonu (petitioner). They were suspected to be carrying some contraband thus, their personal search was conducted. On conducting the search, from the right pocket of jacket of Sukhmander Singh @ Bhoosi, 510 grams of heroin was recovered and from the search of petitioner-Satpal Singh @ Sonu, one Samsung Keypad mobile phone was recovered however, no contraband was recovered from him.

They failed to produce any license regarding the possession of the same thus, the FIR was registered and they were arrested on the spot. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented. On framing of the charges, trial commenced. Petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, however, after hearing counsel for the parties, the same was declined vide order dated 14.10.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that petitioner had taken the lift from the co-accused and he was never aware about the possession of any contraband by the co-accused. To buttress his arguments, he submits that during personal search of both, recovery has been effected from the co-accused and not from the petitioner. He submits that though the petitioner was involved in one another case however, he is on bail in that case. He submits that the false implication of the petitioner is evident from the record. He thus submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the independent witness was joined in this case. He has further submitted that the contraband recovered in the present case is 510 grams of heroin which falls under the commercial quantity thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. He submits that out of 21 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses already stand examined. He has placed on record the custody certificate.

5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied o