IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Berjesh alias Brjesh ….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. Arshvir Singh Sandhu, 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.103 dated 01.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station IT City, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 4.5 Kgs. of opium from the petitioner and his co-accused, on

01.09.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been scrupulously complied with and, thus, prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. 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 12.02.2026, 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 01.09.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 25.02.2025. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till date. Indubitably, the conclusion of the trial will take long. 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 12.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 22 days.

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 grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (