IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10567-2026 Date of decision: 23.04.2026 VIKRAM KUMAR @ VIKEY ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Harsh Noyel, Advocate and Ms. Tejasvi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.196 dated 02.08.2025 registered under Sections 22-C, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Hakima, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 02.08.2025, police party was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended the petitioner, who was found in conscious possession of

35000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. He further argued that, as per the prosecution version, 35000 intoxicant tablets have been recovered from the petitioner, but the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has not been received so far. Petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025 and at this stage, learned counsel confines his prayer only for releasing the petitioner on interim bail till the receipt of FSL report. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a dicta of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in ‘Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others v. State of Punjab’, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953. It has also been argued that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition. Status report has already been filed in the present case. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he was apprehended at the spot with the recovery of alleged contraband, for which FSL report is still awaited.

6. 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 08 months, investigation is underway, FSL report is still awaited which is crucial to determine the applicability of stringent provisions of NDPS Act including commercial quantity threshold and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Keeping the petitioner in further detention till receiving the report of FSL would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi and others v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 953, has held as under:

"5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions found that the question whether such substances/drugs are covered under the NDPS Act or not, or can be dealt with only under the D&C Act has been arising frequently in many cases. The consequences would be completely different if the substances were held to be within the purview of the D&C Act instead of the NDPS Act. The matter was, therefore, referred to a larger bench. Meanwhile, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

xx xx xx xx

53. Indeed the delay in testing the sample does result in pre