IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.02.2026 Jaskaran Singh @ Jass ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sarfaraz Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 154 dated 17.10.2024, registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Dinanagar, Gurdaspur.

2. As per the allegations, on 17.10.2024, on the basis of a secret information, accused Deepak Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 01 kg. 350 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession, which was taken into custody by the police. He was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement, on the basis of which, accused Amit Kumar and Vipenpreet Singh were nominated as such.

Offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. Accused Amit Kumar was arrested on 29.10.2024. On his disclosure, accused Baljinder Singh @ Bhinda, petitioner Jaskaran Singh @ Jas and co-accused Gurwinder Chand @ Kewra were nominated as accused in this case on the allegations that they were the supplier of the recovered contraband. The petitioner along with above named accused Jaskaran Singh was arrested on 24.11.2024.

Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as even charges have not been framed so far. There are total 14 prosecution witnesses. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Co- accused Gurwinder Chand @ Kewra, who is similarly situated with the petitioner, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed in CRM-M-57046-2025. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the above named co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the con