IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 *****

CRM-M No.23060 of 2026 (O & M)

Date of decision : 11.5.2026 Date of uploading : 11.5.2026 Jashanjot Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Vrinda Katoch, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Upon oral motion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the instant order shall be read in respect of offences under Sections 22(C) and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well.

1. Present 2nd 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.46 dated 23.4.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(C), 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

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 19 bottles of codeine phosphate and triprolidine hydrochloride syrup 100 ml. (Onerex) (approximate weight of syrup is 1.9 Kg.) allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused while they were travelling on Activa Honda scooter near Gidderbaha city.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.4.2025. 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 01 year. 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 restricted 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 9.5.2026 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 23.4.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 25.9.2025 and charges were framed on 17.2.2026. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 01 has been examined and 4 have been 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. Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.11.2025. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner and pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in