265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Madan Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 16, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 16, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Senior DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present 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.90 dated 06.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 260 grams of Heroin recovered from co-accused, namely, Naresh Kumar @ Nishu and his co-accused, namely Madan Lal (petitioner herein).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2025. 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 for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused is of 260 grams of Heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 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, the petitioner 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 15.02.2026, 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 06.07.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 23.12.2025. Total 09 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co- accused is 260 grams of Heroin, 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 bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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 co