CRM-M-31182 205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Nitin Pal State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG Punjab VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 17.09.2024 registered under Section 21-A of the Narcotic Drugs (hereinafter referred to of BNS, 2023 added later on, at Police Station Special Task Force, Phase IV, District STF Wing SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2024 and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 21 witness take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and in the present case the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the alleged recovery is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co 31182-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG Punjab -.- VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 17.09.2024 registered under A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) and Section 29 of NDPS and Section 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 added later on, at Police Station Special Task Force, Phase IV, District STF Wing SAS Nagar, Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was ed on 18.09.2024 and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 21 witnesses none has been examined . It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case NDPS Act and in the present case the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the alleged recovery is from the house of co- is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the disclosure statement of co-accused Lakhwinder Singh, who in addition -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31182-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.06.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents VIKAS BAHL Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 17.09.2024 registered under and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as “NDPS Act”) and Section 29 of NDPS and Section 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 added later on, at Police Station Special Task Force, Phase IV, District Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was ed on 18.09.2024 and the investigation is complete and challan has been none has been examined and the trial is likely to . It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case NDPS Act and in the present case the petitioner was not named in the FIR -accused Gursahib Singh @ Saba is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the accused Lakhwinder Singh, who in addition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 17.09.2024 registered under , 1985 as “NDPS Act”) and Section 29 of NDPS and Section 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 added later on, at Police Station Special Task Force, Phase IV, District Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was ed on 18.09.2024 and the investigation is complete and challan has been and the trial is likely to . It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case NDPS Act and in the present case the petitioner was not named in the FIR accused Gursahib Singh @ Saba. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the accused Lakhwinder Singh, who in addition to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31182 the present petitioner had also accused. It is submitted that said Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai have been similarly pl co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2025, passed in CRM 9767-2025. It is argued that even after the arrest of the petitioner no recovery has been affected from the pre present petitioner in respect to the alleged recovery other than the disclosure statement of Lakhwinder Singh. It is submitted that Gursahib Singh @ Saba, from whose house the recovery was mad 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that was made from the house /flat of the co thereafter, one Lakhwinder Singh was nominated as an accused disclosure statement of Gur the present petitioner along with Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai and thus, t involvement of the present petitioner in the present case is apparent and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects however are not in dispute. 4. Keeping in view the above fact that Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai, who is similarly placed as present petitioner has been granted regular bail by a co 26.05.2025, passed in CRM is inside since 18.09.2024 and out of 21 witnesses none has been examined and the trial is likely to take some time and the present petitioner in not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and also no recovery has been made from the present petitioner, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released 31182-2025 (O&M) the present petitioner had also named Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai as one of the accused. It is submitted that said Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai have been similarly placed as the present petitioner, has been granted regular bail by a ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2025, passed in CRM 2025. It is argued that even after the arrest of the petitioner no recovery has been affected from the present petitioner and thus there is no link evidence against the present petitioner in respect to the alleged recovery other than the disclosure statement of Lakhwinder Singh. It is submitted that Gursahib Singh @ Saba, from whose house the recovery was made, has been exonerated in the present FIR. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the recovery of 460 grams of heroin was made from the house /flat of the co-accused Gursahi thereafter, one Lakhwinder Singh was nominated as an accused disclosure statement of Gursahib Singh and the said Lakhwinder Singh has nominated the present petitioner along with Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai and thus, t involvement of the present petitioner in the present case is apparent and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects however are not in Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, fact that Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai, who is similarly placed as present petitioner has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-9767-2025 and also the fact that the present petitione is inside since 18.09.2024 and out of 21 witnesses none has been examined and the trial is likely to take some time and the present petitioner in not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and also no recovery has been made from the present the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released -2- named Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai as one of the accused. It is submitted that said Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai, who is stated to aced as the present petitioner, has been granted regular bail by a ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2025, passed in CRM- 2025. It is argued that even after the arrest of the petitioner no recovery has sent petitioner and thus there is no link evidence against the present petitioner in respect to the alleged recovery other than the disclosure statement of Lakhwinder Singh. It is submitted that Gursahib Singh @ Saba, from whose house e, has been exonerated in the present FIR. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present the recovery of 460 grams of heroin accused Gursahib Singh @ Saba and thereafter, one Lakhwinder Singh was nominated as an accused on the basis of the sahib Singh and the said Lakhwinder Singh has nominated the present petitioner along with Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai and thus, t involvement of the present petitioner in the present case is apparent and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects however are not in said facts and circumstances, more so fact that Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai, who is similarly placed as present petitioner ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2025 and also the fact that the present petitione is inside since 18.09.2024 and out of 21 witnesses none has been examined and the trial is likely to take some time and the present petitioner in not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and also no recovery has been made from the present the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released named Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai as one of the , who is stated to aced as the present petitioner, has been granted regular bail by a -M- 2025. It is argued that even after the arrest of the petitioner no recovery has sent petitioner and thus there is no link evidence against the present petitioner in respect to the alleged recovery other than the disclosure statement of Lakhwinder Singh. It is submitted that Gursahib Singh @ Saba, from whose house Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present the recovery of 460 grams of heroin b Singh @ Saba and on the basis of the sahib Singh and the said Lakhwinder Singh has nominated the present petitioner along with Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai and thus, the involvement of the present petitioner in the present case is apparent and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects however are not in the fact that Tamanna Joshi @ Tamanna Rai, who is similarly placed as present petitioner ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2025 and also the fact that the present petitioner is inside since 18.09.2024 and out of 21 witnesses none has been examined and the trial is likely to take some time and the present petitioner in not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and also no recovery has been made from the present the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31182 on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions: a). The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. b). The petitioner will not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness(s). c). The petitioner will appear before personal presence is exempted. d). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. e). The petitioner shall not directly or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 5. In case of breach of any of the at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 6. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed ind observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of June 23, 2025 tripti 31182-2025 (O&M) on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions: The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. The petitioner will not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness(s). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed ind observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO -3- on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:- The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. The petitioner will not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness(s). the trial Court on the date fixed, unless The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case. the trial Court on the date fixed, unless The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper above conditions, the prosecution shall be Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion ependently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document