IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.03.2026 LUCKY ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manju Fulara, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.34 dated 10.03.2025, registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, under Sections 22, 27-A, 29 and 31 NDPS Act, 1985 (offence under Sections 29 and 31 NDPS Act added later on).

2. Reply by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur, filed in the C ourt, is taken on record.

3. Learned c ounsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and 10 days. He alleges false implication. The recovery alleged to have been effected from him is 27 t ablets containing 4.72grams of Etizolam, from a bag lying on the ground, thus, it is debatable whether he can be said to have been in conscious possession thereof. Even otherwise, its usage is similar to Alprazolam, the commercial quantity for which under NDPS Act starts at 100gms, unlike Etizolam, which is at 2.5gms. There is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act. No independent witness has been joined at the t ime of recovery. Charges have been framed on 10.12.2025, however none out of 18 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 4 more cases with regard to small quantity of contraband, in 1 of which he is on bail and has undergone the sentence of 10/12 days in remaining. Re liance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 .

4. The custody certificate dated 26.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year and 10 days.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot, alongwith drug money of Rs.1,000/-. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in 1 other case.

6. Heard.

7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis o f criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another , (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

8. Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. In Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.02.2023, wherein a commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail .

9. In Baljit Singh @ Mintu @ Baljit Gill vs. State of Punjab , CRM-M-15588-2024, a case wherein 40 tablets, containing 7.2 grams of the salt Etizolam were recovered, this Court while considering that it is not a hard drug like heroin, charas or other synthetic ones, granted bail to the petitioner therein, who was involved in 5 other cases of similar nature, after being in custody for a period of 1 year, 1 month and 8 days.

10. R