CRM-M-70430- IN THE H (148) NAVEEN KUMA STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. S Mr. P Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Psychotropic Sub Colony, Bathinda, 2. As pe duty, 02 youths w vehicle at a desert and were searchin interrogation, they -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH UMAR Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Sibandh Mehta, Advocate for Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the p Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F under Sections 21(b), 27 and 29 c Substances Act (for short “NDP hinda, District Bathinda. As per the allegations, on 03.09.2025 ths were found by the Police officials deserted place. They were carrying arching something in it. On suspicion n, they disclosed their names as Na JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-70430-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner Punjab preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.219 dated 03.09.2025 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and NDPS”) at Police Station Canal 9.2025, while performing patrolling fficials while standing with an activa rrying a transparent plastic envelope spicion, they were apprehended. On as Naveen Kumar i.e. the present M) 2026 nder ) 2025 and anal lling a lope . On esent AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70430- petitioner and San was found kept in Police. The petiti concluded. 3. It is falsely implicated further incarcerati 37 of NDPS Act a cannot be conside investigation now deserves to be allo 4. Status learned State cou petitioner and the deserve to be exte deserve to be allow 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p conscious posses investigation has n -2025 (O&M) 2 nd Sandeep Kumar. On conducting s ept in the plastic envelope which wa petitioner and co-accused were arres It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery ha rceration would not serve any useful p Act are not attracted in this case. H onsidered to be a reason for denying n now stands concluded. It is, there be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h te counsel that taking into consider d the gravity of the allegations as lev e extended benefit of bail. It is thus, u e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc possession of non-commercial qua n has now been concluded. The trial cting search, 15.85 Grams of heroin ch was taken into possession by the e arrested. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. His seful purpose. The rigors of Section ase. His involvement in other cases enying benefit of bail to him. The , therefore, argued that the petition icate have been filed. It is argued by nsideration the antecedents of the as levelled against him, he does not thus, urged that the petition does not ubmissions made by learned counsel accused was allegedly found in l quantity of contraband. The trial will take considerable time to eroin y the tands been His ction cases The tition d by f the s not s not unsel d in The e to AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70430- conclude. No us custody anymore. be denied benefit rule and jail is an post-conviction se accused during tri the aforesaid facts that no useful pu anymore. Accordi to be released on r the satisfaction of open for the prose found involved in 7. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 8. Since any, is rendered in 19.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 3 No useful purpose would be served more. Merely because of his involve enefit of bail. The well settled propo l is an exception. Pre-trial incarcera tion sentencing. The object of the jail ing trial, and it cannot be preventive d facts and circumstances, this Court ful purpose would be served by keep ccordingly, the present petition is allo ed on regular bail, subject to his furnis ion of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate prosecution to apply for cancellation ved in any other subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   erved by detaining the petitioner in volvement in other cases, he cannot proposition of law is that bail is the carceration should not be replica of he jail is to secure appearance of the entive or punitive. Keeping in view Court is of the considered opinion y keeping the petitioner in custody is allowed. The petitioner is ordered furnishing personal/surety bonds to strate concerned. However, it will be lation of bail in case the petitioner is vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
er in nnot s the ca of the view inion tody ered ds to ill be er is for ng n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.