SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition is third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.45 dated 27.02.2025, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ [charges framed under Sections 22-C and 29 of NDPS Act]. The second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 28.10.2025.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Dharminder Singh’, who had reported that on 27.02.2025 at about 05:10 pm, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, he spotted two persons approaching them from Village Gana side, carrying black polythene bags in their hands. According to above-named police officer, the moment the abovesaid two persons noticed the presence of police party on their way ahead, they threw a heavy polythene packet and tried to walk away towards kuccha road. As per above-named police officer, in view of suspicious behaviour, the abovesaid two persons were checked, who on enquiry disclosed their names as ‘Kashmir Chand @Tota’ (the petitioner herein) and ‘Yati @Jatin’. According to above-named police officer, when contents of the packets thrown by them were checked, it was found that in each packet, there were 30 tablets of Etizolam 0.5 mg.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is third petition for bail filed by the petitioner and the same is maintainable, as the first petition of bail filed by the petitioner was not decided on merits and the same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 27.05.2025, whereas the second petition for bail filed by the petitioner although decided on merits, was dismissed way back on 28.10.2025, i.e. about ten months ago. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, no significant progress in trial has taken place and therefore, the present petition for bail is maintainable.

6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, the necessary formalities with regard to compliance of Section-50 of NDPS Act were not performed by the police party and even the grounds of arrest were not served upon the petitioner. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah V/s State of Mahashtra & Anr.’ AIR 2025 SC 5554, ‘Dr. Rajinder Rajan V/s Union of India & Ors.’ 2026(2) RCR (Criminal) 484 and by this Court in the cases of ‘ Sajan Singh V/s State of Punjab ’ CRWP-4021-2026, ‘ Sandeep Kumar @Seepu V/s State of Punjab ’ CRM-M-54946-2025, ‘ Gursimran Singh V/s Union of India ’ 2025(4) Law Herald 2924, ‘ Pawan Kumar V/s State of Punjab ’ CRM-M- 24404-2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the arrest of the petitioner itself being defective, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that allegations in the present case are with regard to recovery of ‘commercial quantity’ of contraband and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions, enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner.

8. It has been further contended by learned State Counsel that the merits of the case have already been discussed in the or