CRM-M-10921 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 223 Parminder Singh @ Happy State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagari grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 47 dated 10.05.2021, registered under Section 22 of the Substances Act, 1985 District Kapurthala. 2. the allegations that on 10.05.2021, he was found in possession of 650 intoxicant tablets of registration of the FIR. The trial is going on. 3. has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in prolonged incarceration. The trial is progressing at snail’s speed. quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride in tablets was found to be 48.46 mg and in this way, the total weight of the recovered tablets would come only 31.499 10921-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parminder Singh @ Happy Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagari grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 47 dated 10.05.2021, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) District Kapurthala. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this case on the allegations that on 10.05.2021, he was found in possession of 650 intoxicant tablets (Tramadol Hydrochloride) of registration of the FIR. The trial is going on. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in prolonged incarceration. The trial is progressing at snail’s speed. In fact, as per FSL report, the average quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride in tablets was found to be 48.46 mg and in this way, the total weight of the recovered tablets would come only 31.499 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10921-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.08.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 47 dated 10.05.2021, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Satnampura, The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this case on the allegations that on 10.05.2021, he was found in possession of 650 (Tramadol Hydrochloride). He is in custody since the date of registration of the FIR. The trial is going on. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in prolonged incarceration. The In fact, as per FSL report, the average quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride in tablets was found to be 48.46 mg and in this way, the total weight of the recovered tablets would come only 31.499 -1- 2025 (O&M) 06.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the k Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 47 dated 10.05.2021, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic at Police Station Satnampura, The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this case on the allegations that on 10.05.2021, he was found in possession of 650 nce the date Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in prolonged incarceration. The In fact, as per FSL report, the average quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride in tablets was found to be 48.46 mg and in this way, the total weight of the recovered tablets would come only 31.499 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10921 grams, which does not fall under commercial quantity, the same grams. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that the trial is substantially delayed, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is l 5. and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. quantity of intoxicating tablets, the pet period of his interim bail, which was granted to him awaiting FSL report. A perusal of the status report reveals that despite the fact that challan was presented on 28.10.2022, only one prosecution witness has been e far. It is also a debatable question whether the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity or not? He is not shown to be involved in any other case. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Keeping in view the afore that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. ordered to be released on regular bail, subjec bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case 10921-2025 (O&M) grams, which does not fall under commercial quantity, the same grams. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that the trial is substantially delayed, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed by the respondent State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. After having been arrested on 10.05.2021 along with aforesaid quantity of intoxicating tablets, the petitioner has been in custody barring the period of his interim bail, which was granted to him awaiting FSL report. A perusal of the status report reveals that despite the fact that challan was presented on 28.10.2022, only one prosecution witness has been e far. It is also a debatable question whether the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity or not? He is not shown to be involved in any other case. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subjec bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case 2025 (O&M) grams, which does not fall under commercial quantity, the same being 250 grams. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that the trial is substantially delayed, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it iable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. After having been arrested on 10.05.2021 along with aforesaid itioner has been in custody barring the period of his interim bail, which was granted to him awaiting FSL report. A perusal of the status report reveals that despite the fact that challan was presented on 28.10.2022, only one prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is also a debatable question whether the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity or not? He is not shown to be involved in any other case. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Keeping said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. -2- being 250 grams. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that the trial is substantially delayed, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length After having been arrested on 10.05.2021 along with aforesaid itioner has been in custody barring the period of his interim bail, which was granted to him awaiting FSL report. A perusal of the status report reveals that despite the fact that challan was xamined so far. It is also a debatable question whether the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity or not? He is not shown to be involved in any other case. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Keeping said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is t to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10921 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 06.08.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 10921-2025 (O&M) It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 06.08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -3- It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document