SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.173 dated 26.06.2025, under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act 1985, registered at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force (ANTF), ANTF Wing, SAS Nagar.

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 313 grams of heroin, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted the recovery of the contraband in question i.e. 313 grams of heroin is not from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He has further urged that, as per the case set up by the prosecution, the contraband in question has been recovered from the car driven by the co-accused Akashdeep Singh whereas the petitioner was on a different vehicle i.e. a motorcycle. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the State has sought to connect the recovery of the contraband in question with the petitioner solely on the basis of call detail records of the petitioner, which is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not 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 further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 10 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel while raising submissions in tandem with the reply dated 27.04.2026 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 06.05.2026 in Court, 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 26.06.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 20.12.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which none has been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that 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 06.05.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 10 months and 6 days & is shown to be involved in one more FIR/case. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim