IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Karanjeet Singh @ Karan ….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. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 13.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Sections 25/54/ 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 Sections 10/ 11/ 12 of the Aircraft Act added later on), at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, Arms Act and Aircraft Act involving Rs.6,90,000/- as drug money allegedly recovered from co-accused, namely, Jagjit Singh, 50 grams of Heroin and one 32 bore pistol allegedly recovered from co-accused, namely, Gurinder Singh, 04 Glock 9 mm pistol allegedly recovered from co-accused – Arshdeep Singh @ Baba and Karanjit Singh @ Karan (petitioner herein), and one drone allegedly recovered from co-accused, namely, Harpal Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, only 1 Glock 9 mm pistol has been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused, namely, Arshdeep Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that recovery of `6,90,000; 4 glocks 9 mm pistols, one 32 bore pistol and 50 grams of Heroin has been attributed to the co-accused and not to the present petitioner. 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 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 14.07.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 07.01.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. 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. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. 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 24 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). 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;