IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 *****

CRM-M No.1087 of 2026 Date of decision : 21.4.2026 Date of uploading : 22.4.2026 Maninder Singh @ Nikka ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, 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.94 dated 25.4.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 127(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar.

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 1005 tablets of alprazolam of 0.5 mg and 1000 tablets of panadol (hydrochloride) of 100 mg, allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused on 24.4.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2025. 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 about 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of affidavit of Sarwanjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division 5, Cantt. Jaladhar, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 20.4.2026 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 25.4.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 23.10.2025. Charges in the present case were framed on 20.2.2026. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined 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. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 20.4.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months 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 the Constitution of India.

6.2 This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another,