IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.04.2026 SUMIT ALIAS SUMEET TARGOTRA ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023(erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No.170 dated 14.10.2025, under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station A-Division, Amritsar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that during patrolling, the petitioner was apprehended and 11 grams of heroin (non-commercial quantity) was recovered from his possession in a polythene bag along with an amount of Rs.

1,900/-, which is alleged to be drug money.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no incriminating material which would connect him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months and is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, the alleged recovery of contraband is of non-commercial quantity and that the trial is likely to take a long time because none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant/injured would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL)

April 17, 2026 JUDGE Sonia