CRM-M-33078-2025 -1- 248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33078-2025 Date of Decision:07.07.2025 Malwinder Singh alias Sonu …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Aman Raj Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.31 dated 15.02.2025 registered under Sections 18, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar City, District Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact, the police has wrongly shown the recovery of 2 kg and 300 grams of opium from the petitioner. Further, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from his bank account, which is apparent from the account statement (Annexure P-3) and the recovery of the said amount was also shown from him as a drug money. In fact, the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and is running a chicken corner near the Police Station Chheharta. However, the police was insisting that he should supply chicken to the police men without charging anything from them and due to this, a scuffle took place between him and other police officials. He further HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33078-2025 -2- contends that the petitioner was wrongly arrested on 15.02.2025 and is in custody since then. Since the quantity of contraband recovered from him is non-commercial in nature, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act may not apply. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. However, he admits that there is no other case against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, the quantity of contraband, which was recovered from the petitioner is non-commercial in nature. Moreover, it is not certain whether the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, is a drug money or not. However, even the prosecution is yet to lead evidence with regard to the fact that Rs.20,000/- was a drug money, only during the course of trial. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 07.07.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document