CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913---- 219 219 219 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Lakhwinder Singh @ Billa @ Lucky State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Mandi, District Fatehgarh 2. an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to intoxicant tablets petitioner. 3. affidavit dated 12.08.2025 of Police, Sub-Division Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Lakhwinder Singh @ Billa @ Lucky versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.89 dated ences punishable under Sections 22/61/85 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Mandi, District Fatehgarh-Sahib, Punjab. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to intoxicant tablets (Alprazolam) (40.185 grams) Learned State counsel has filed affidavit dated 12.08.2025 of Gurdeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Division Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 13 August 13 August 13 August 13, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 26.04.2025, registered for the 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Gobindgarh The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving (Alprazolam) (40.185 grams) allegedly recovered from the has filed status report by way of an Gurdeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Division Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, in the Court today, 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and of Gobindgarh The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is NDPS Act involving recovered from the status report by way of an Gurdeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of , in the Court today, MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913---- which is taken on record. A copy thereof counsel for the petitioner. 4. in custody since contraband alleged recovered from the petitioner is non To buttress this aspect of the the aforesaid status report 4.1. the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inher has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. prayed for. 5. that the allegations raised he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail seeks to place on record custody certificate dated today, which is taken on record. 6. the available records of the case. ----2025 2025 2025 2025 which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the lea counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 26.04.2025. Learned counsel has further contraband alleged recovered from the petitioner is non this aspect of the argument, reliance has been placed aforesaid status report, which reads thus: “7. That as per the Forensic Science Laboratory the total weight of the recovered contraband comes to 40.185 grams (285 tablets x 126 mg = 35.91 grams, 15 tablets x 155 mg = 2.325 grams, and 15 tablets x 130 mg = 1.95 grams). The contents of the tablets were found to contain Alprazolam. The reco quantity thus falls under the category of non under the NDPS Act.” Learned counsel has further argued that the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition that the allegations raised against the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail seeks to place on record custody certificate dated , which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. 2222 has been furnished to the learned Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel has further iterated that the contraband alleged recovered from the petitioner is non-commercial in nature. reliance has been placed on para-7 of That as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the total weight of the recovered contraband comes to 40.185 tablets x 126 mg = 35.91 grams, 15 tablets x 155 mg = 2.325 grams, and 15 tablets x 130 mg = 1.95 grams). The contents of the tablets were found to contain Alprazolam. The recovered quantity thus falls under the category of non-commercial quantity Learned counsel has further argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.08.2025 in the Court rival parties and have gone through 2222 rned that the petitioner is that the commercial in nature. 7 of report, the total weight of the recovered contraband comes to 40.185 tablets x 126 mg = 35.91 grams, 15 tablets x 155 mg = 2.325 grams, and 15 tablets x 130 mg = 1.95 grams). The contents vered commercial quantity mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case argued that the petitioner Thus, regular bail is arguing , Learned State counsel Court parties and have gone through MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913---- 7. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 13 prosecution It is thus, indubitable contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justic evidence. 7.1. State counsel, more than 03 is stated to be involved in ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. ----2025 2025 2025 2025 The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 3333 The petitioner was arrested on 26.04.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 25.06.2025. Total but none has been examined till date. that conclusion of the trial will take long. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner e or interfering with the prosecution As per custody certificate dated 12.08.2025 filed by the learned the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State o Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and f U.P. and f U.P. and f U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State 3333 whereinafter Total . The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner e or interfering with the prosecution filed by the learned the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the f U.P. and f U.P. and f U.P. and f U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR 2022 titled as Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913---- not warranted in the facts 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned addition to conditions that may be Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou 9. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 10. ----2025 2025 2025 2025 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case t petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 4444 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or uring the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the oner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 4444 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the /Duty Magistrate. However, in /Duty The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the oner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and phone number without prior The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of he petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----32913 32913 32913 32913---- 11. opinion on the merits of the case. 12. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 13 August 13 August 13 August 13, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 2025 2025 2025 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending mi application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5555 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5555 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of scellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment