IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 *****

CRM-M No.56968 of 2025 Date of decision : 12.2.2026 Date of uploading : 12.02.2026 Akashdeep Singh @ Akash ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. G.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.131 dated 8.5.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21-C, 25, 27-B, 29, 30, 32, 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station STF, Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act/Arms Act involving 1 Kg.105 grams of heroin, one pistol, one magazine, 3 live rounds and one Honda Activa allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.5.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that both the co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 25.1.2024 passed in CRM-M No.42131 of 2023 (Gagandeep Singh) and order dated 4.9.2025 passed in CRM-M No.23045 of 2025 (Gurinder Singh). Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 2 years and 8 months. 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 restricted 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 11.2.2026 in Court, 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 16.5.2023, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 14.11.2023. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 2 have been partly examined till date. It is not in dispute that co-

accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of regular bail. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn on 18.2.2025. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial; this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S- 2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following princip