IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 CRM-M-15981-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.04.2026 Raghu @ Nitu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 50 dated 26.06.2025, registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 26.06.2025, co-accused Malkit Singh, Rishi Saini and Parth Saini, while travelling in a car, were apprehended by a police party. During personal search of co-accused Malkit Singh, recovery of one pistol along with magazine containing 05 live cartridges was effected from him. He could not produce any license for the same. Upon search of the car, recovery of 270 grams of heroin was effected. The recovered articles were taken into possession by the police. The co-accused were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their guilt and disclosed that the recovered articles were procured from an unknown person in Shanni Beli, Himachal Pradesh. During further investigation, the petitioner came out as the person who had supplied the recovered contraband to the co-accused. He was nominated as co-accused in this case and was arrested on 02.02.2026.

Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co- accused. He has clean antecedents. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. He has been in custody since 02.02.2026. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised t