CRM-M-69806-2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 175 CRM-M-69806-2025 Decided on : 25.02.2026 Inderjit Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Manpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, SPP, NCB with Mr. Sumeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Susmit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent – UOI. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) Crime No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Inderjit Singh 27 15.12.2023 8, 18, 23 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 NCB Chandigarh 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even in the complaint, it is nowhere explained that the mobile, which was in the name of Inderjit Singh (petitioner herein), has ever been recovered despite he being in the custody for the last about more than a period of 04 months. Co-accused – Amanpreet Singh, who booked the parcel from which the seized contraband weighing 0.102 kg. opium was recovered, has already been released on bail, despite he being ideitified in the CCTV footage while picking up the parcel from courier office. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces the copy of order dated 15.10.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CRM- JAWALA RAM 2026.02.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-69806-2025 - 2 - M-40370-2024, titled as, “Amanpreet Singh v. Union of India through NCB, Chandigarh”. Same is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. Accordingly, in view of above mentioned facts and on the ground of parity, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel though vehemently opposes the prayer of bail, but he is unable to refute the factual aspects of the case, which have been recorded here-above. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the instant petition along with relevant material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the recovered contraband in the present case is 0.102 kg of opium, which falls within the category of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has already been subjected to investigation/interrogation by the Narcotic Control Bureau and is in custody for the last about more than 04 months. It is further noticeable that co-accused – Amanpreet Singh, at whose instance the parcel containing the contraband was booked and being couriered also stated to be seen in CCTV footage, has already been granted concession of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the petitioner seeks parity with the said co-accused. Besides, petitioner is stated to be aged about 29 years and is not shown to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. The culpability of the petitioner is yet to be established during the course of trial. 7. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of allegations, the quantity involved, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, and the principle of parity, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in JAWALA RAM 2026.02.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-69806-2025 - 3 - any other case. 8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 10. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 11. Petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE February 25, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.02.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document