Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The petitioner, Ajay Kochar, was charged under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in relation to FIR No. 26 of 2025 registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District-Jalandhar Rural (!) (!) . The main contention was whether the recovery from the petitioner involved a scheduled substance under the NDPS Act, as mere possession without evidence of a scheduled substance may not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act (!) . The court observed that the charges had already been framed and considered the circumstances sufficient to grant bail (!) (!) . The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail under strict conditions, including surrendering his passport if applicable, with conditions to prevent trial delays (!) . The bail was granted with the understanding that if the trial is delayed, the prosecution may seek cancellation of the bail (!) . The petition was disposed of with these directions, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of accordingly (!) (!) . Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.

AJAY KOCHAR vs STATE OF PUNJAB - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 267

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. PANKAJ MITHAL, MR. S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ
AJAY KOCHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Ms. Shradha Zutshi, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohd Irshad, A.A.G., Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The petitioner, Ajay Kochar, was charged under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in relation to FIR No. 26 of 2025 registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District-Jalandhar Rural (!) (!) .
The main contention was whether the recovery from the petitioner involved a scheduled substance under the NDPS Act, as mere possession without evidence of a scheduled substance may not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act (!) .
The court observed that the charges had already been framed and considered the circumstances sufficient to grant bail (!) (!) .
The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail under strict conditions, including surrendering his passport if applicable, with conditions to prevent trial delays (!) .
The bail was granted with the understanding that if the trial is delayed, the prosecution may seek cancellation of the bail (!) .
The petition was disposed of with these directions, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

2. The petitioner is charged under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) pursuant to FIR No. 26 of 2025 registered with Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District-Jalandhar Rural.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery from the petitioner is not of a scheduled substance. The mere possession may not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. The charges have already been framed.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the stringent terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court commensurating with the charges, if any, framed against him including surrendering of his passport, if any, with the Trial Court itself.

7. In the event the petitioner delays the trial, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

8. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMR. PANKAJ MITHAL, MR. S.V.N. BHATTI, JJAJAY KOCHAR – AppellantVersusSTATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. PANKAJ MITHAL, MR. S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ
AJAY KOCHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent