IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

241 *****

CRM-M No.49750 of 2025 Date of decision : 11.9.2025 Malkiat Singh @ Lakhi ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate and Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.580 dated 17.12.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22-C, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 4 boxes containing vials of intoxicant syrup, labelled WINCIREX, each vial of 100 ml, 450 vials in total, 3 card board boxes, one card board box containing 50 small boxes, each small box containing 50 strips of intoxicant tablets, each strip containing 10 tablets, labelled TRAMWEL SR-100 (Tramadol Prolonged -release Tablets IP), 25000 tablets in total, one card board box containing 600 strips of intoxicant tablets, labelled Alprasafe 0.5, each strip containing 10 tablets, 6000 tablets in total and one card board box containing 24 transparent polythene bags, each polythene bag containing loose intoxicant tablets, 1000 Nos., 24000 tablets in total, allegedly found in possession of the petitioner and his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2022. 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 02 years. 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, 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 10.9.2025 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 17.12.2022 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.07.2023. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of them, 3 have been examined, 01 partially examined and 5 have given up till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 10.9.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years and 23 days. 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 th