IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 Date of decision: 21.04.2026 Sandeep Singh @ Saabi @ Laadi ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This first petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 19.01.2024, registered under Section(s) 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that co-accused/Hardeep Singh was apprehended by the police and recovery of 400 grams of Heroin was effected from his conscious possession pursuant to which the present FIR was registered. He submits that the petitioner was nominated on the disclosure made by the said co-accused/Hardeep Singh to the effect that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner. It is contended that said co-accused/Hardeep Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-7953-2025. He further contends that only 02 out of the total 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude.

3. Learned counsel for respondent-State submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He, however, does not dispute that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the disclosure of co- accused/Hardeep Singh from whom the contraband was recovered and the fact that the said co-accused/Hardeep Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. It is also not disputed that no recovery of any nature whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner or at his instance.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as noted above, including the period of actual custody undergone by the petitioner, nature of allegations against him, the stage of the trial wherein only 02 out of the total 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and bearing in mind that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, I deem it fit to allow the instant petition.

5. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

6. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

7. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

21.04.2026 JUDGE

Mangal Singh