IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harish Kumar @ Khanda ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: February 12, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.123 dated 26.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21-B/ 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 27 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 50 grams of Heroin and Rs.20,000/- (drug money) from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 50 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further argued that the police has sought to invoke Section 37 of the NDPS Act on account of alleged recovery of Rs.20,000/-, which is reflected as drug money, but basis thereof is the only confessional statement of the petitioner, which is not likely to stand judicial scrutiny. 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, the petitioner ought not to be extended concession of 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 11.02.2026, in the Court today, 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 26.07.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation, the challan has been presented on 24.09.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, one has been examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, is 50 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial quantity in nature, and recovery of Rs.20,000/- is shown to be the drug money, but basis whereof is only the confessional statement of the petitioner. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which 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. As per custody certificate dated 11.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06 months and 13 days.

6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for g