SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 2nd 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.96 dated 25.3.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh.

1.1 The first petition was filed for interim regular bail, which was granted by this Court and the petitioner was released on interim regular bail for a period of 6 days to attend the kirya/last ceremony of his father.

2. The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 50 kg. 760 grams of ganja.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.3.2025.. Learned counsel has further urged that secret information was received by the police qua the present petitioner and one other person Harun, but the said Harun was let off by the police. Learned counsel has further urged that the alleged recovery of the contraband was from the Brezza car bearing Registration No.HR 72F 8528, which was owned by one Yadram Singh Karhana but the said person was also let off by the police. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner was falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on account of his antecedents. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner was earlier extended the concession of interim regular bail for a period of 6 days vide order dated 10.4.2026 passed in CRM-M No.19232 of 2026 and the petitioner has shown his respect towards process of law by surrendering in time. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 01 year and 3 months. Learned counsel has further urged that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel 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. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. 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 20.7.2026 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 25.3.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 18.6.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 2 have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which 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 20.7.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 3 months and 19 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 Sup