RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.59 dated 26.06.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 26.06.2025 ASI Balwinder Singh along with his fellow police officials acting upon secret information spotted a vehicle and apprehended the petitioner and co-accused. Upon search, they were found in conscious possession of 900 loose intoxicant tablets. Upon further search one pistol was recovered below the driver seat and one Kirpan, 02 iron knives, 02 iron datars (blade) and 01 iron rod was recovered from the boot space of the car. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He further contends that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected. Learned counsel submits that the co-accused Sukhdarshan Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2026, passed in CRM-M-2853-2026. The petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, however, charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as the custody certificate which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases of similar nature meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months and 05 days; the co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges are yet to be framed and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petition