IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kalu ....Petitioner V/s The State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 12.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. B.K. Bhangu, Advocate for Mr. Angrej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present fourth 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.171 dated 26.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to an incident which occurred on 26.06.2024 wherein the petitioner was apprehended by the Police of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 110 grams of intoxicant powder without permit or licence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2024. Learned counsel iterated that earlier, vide order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim regular bail till the report of Chemical Examiner was received. Thereafter, the challan was presented alongwith the FSL report. As per the said FSL report, the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 110 grams of Alprazolam which falls under the category of commercial quantity whereinafter, the bail of the petitioner was canceleld and he was taken back into custody. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. According to learned counsel, the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is of 110 grams of Alprazolam, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 years and 06 months. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated 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 does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has iterated 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 26.06.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 18.09.2024. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 02 have been examined fully. Indubitably, the conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 110 grams of Alprazolam, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on b