IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 224 SUKHWINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita petitioner in case FIR No. No.61) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (and Sections 22(b), 27 the NDPS Act deleted later on) District Fatehabad 2. has been in custody since possession of 590 tablets of Tramadol weighing 2.200 grams. It has been submitted that the alleged recovery although is classified as ‘non commercial’ under the NDPS Act. It has still further been submitted that investigation is complete presented but even charges stand framed on 21.04.2025, however, only 1 out IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: SUKHWINDER SINGH @ NUNA @ SUKHA Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. K.S. Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. The instant petition is the second petition Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case FIR No.205 dated 09.08.2024 No.61) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (and Sections 22(b), 27-A of the NDPS Act added later on and Section 22 the NDPS Act deleted later on), registered at Police Station ehabad (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has been in custody since 09.08.2024 after he was allegedly found in possession of 590 tablets of Tramadol weighing 2.200 grams. It has been submitted that the alleged recovery although is classified as ‘non commercial’ under the NDPS Act. It has still further been submitted that n is complete qua the petitioner as not only challan stands presented but even charges stand framed on 21.04.2025, however, only 1 out IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -M-30522-2025 Date of decision: July 01, 2025 SUKHA .....Petitioner .....Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. is the second petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the 09.08.2024 under Sections 22-C (Act No.61) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (and A of the NDPS Act added later on and Section 22-C of registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after he was allegedly found in possession of 590 tablets of Tramadol weighing 2.200 grams. It has been submitted that the alleged recovery although is classified as ‘non- commercial’ under the NDPS Act. It has still further been submitted that the petitioner as not only challan stands presented but even charges stand framed on 21.04.2025, however, only 1 out Petitioner .....Respondent filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the C (Act No.61) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (and C of , submits that the petitioner after he was allegedly found in possession of 590 tablets of Tramadol weighing 2.200 grams. It has been - commercial’ under the NDPS Act. It has still further been submitted that the petitioner as not only challan stands presented but even charges stand framed on 21.04.2025, however, only 1 out Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.01 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30522 of the 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined till date, hence, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise. 3. and submissions made by the counsel opposite period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the stage of trial; on further instructions, learned State counsel has also not disputed that the alleged recovery made from the petitioner under the NDPS Act. However, it has been asserted that the petitioner was apprehended by the police following a secret information and after due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. fixed before the learned trial Court, as per the instructions received by the learned State counsel, is 13.08.2025, when some of the remaining 21 prosecution witnesses will be examined. 4. relevant material placed on record. 5. further incarceration of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 09.08.2024, would serve no useful purpose as the trial would take considerable time to conclude instant petition, and extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 6. be admitted to bail on the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 30522-2025 of the 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined till date, hence, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the counsel opposite period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the stage of trial; on further instructions, learned State counsel has also not disputed that the alleged made from the petitioner stands classified as ‘non under the NDPS Act. However, it has been asserted that the petitioner was apprehended by the police following a secret information and after due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. ed before the learned trial Court, as per the instructions received by the learned State counsel, is 13.08.2025, when some of the remaining 21 prosecution witnesses will be examined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, further incarceration of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 09.08.2024, would serve no useful purpose as the trial would take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to allow the instant petition, and extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2- of the 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined till date, hence, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise. , learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the stage of trial; on further instructions, learned State counsel has also not disputed that the alleged stands classified as ‘non-commercial’ under the NDPS Act. However, it has been asserted that the petitioner was apprehended by the police following a secret information and after due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The next date ed before the learned trial Court, as per the instructions received by the learned State counsel, is 13.08.2025, when some of the remaining 21 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, further incarceration of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 09.08.2024, would serve no useful purpose as the trial would take . Therefore, this Court deems it fit to allow the instant petition, and extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of of the 22 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined till date, the prayer , has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the stage of trial; on further instructions, learned State counsel has also not disputed that the alleged commercial’ under the NDPS Act. However, it has been asserted that the petitioner was apprehended by the police following a secret information and after due The next date ed before the learned trial Court, as per the instructions received by the learned State counsel, is 13.08.2025, when some of the remaining 21 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, further incarceration of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 09.08.2024, would serve no useful purpose as the trial would take . Therefore, this Court deems it fit to allow the and the petitioner furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.01 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30522 7. shall not be construed to be an expression of op case. 8. the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty seek cancellation of bail to him. July 01, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur 30522-2025 However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of op Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty seek cancellation of bail to him. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- , it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court to (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No , it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove inion on the merits of the Needless to add here, in case the petitioner is found misusing to approach this Court to Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.01 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh