CRM-M-45471-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CRM-M-45471-2025 Decided on :13.07.2026 Paramjit Singh alias Pamma . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 170 dated 22.06.2025, under Sections 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Mullana, District Ambala. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.06.2025, a police patrolling party headed by ASI Surender Kumar of the Haryana State Narcotics Control Bureau Unit, Kurukshetra, on the basis of secret information, intercepted a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-54D- 9845, which was being driven by petitioner-accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma. Upon search, the police recovered 62 strips of Spaspeace capsules, containing a total of 494 capsules (comprising the salts Acetaminophen, Tramadol and Dicyclomine), from the possession of RASHMI 2026.07.14 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45471-2025 2 petitioner-accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma. The total weight of the recovered 494 capsules was found to be 263.7 grams. Recovery proceedings were conducted in the presence of DSP Suresh Kumar, who acted as the Gazetted Officer in terms of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. During investigation, the disclosure statement of petitioner-accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the aforesaid capsules from accused Mandeep Singh @ Anshul Rana. Accordingly, petitioner-accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma has been alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. Mr. Mrigank Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that actual quantity of narcotic substance recovered from the 494 Tramadol capsules is 263.7 grams, which, as per the prosecution case, is only 13.07 grams above the maximum permissible limit of non- commercial quantity. It is further argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that, despite being 42 years of age, he has no previous involvement in any similar offence during his past conduct. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already remained in custody for more than one year, his date of arrest being 22.06.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the observations made by the learned Sessions Court while declining the prayer for grant of bail, which read as under: RASHMI 2026.07.14 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45471-2025 3 “I have heard the contentions of both learned counsels and perused the case file Very carefully. Out-rightly, it seems that the investigating agency had not acted in an ideal manner as it made some omission in not measuring the weight of capsules from each strip or from homogeneous mixture of the capsules to calculate the average weight of the recovered capsules I have also perused inventory report prepared under Section 52A of NDPS Act by the learned Magistrate wherein learned Magistrate has observed that 5 random capsules from 5 different strips were weighed separately and 2 strips from each batch were pulled out to draw sample. Though there seems some variation in two strips belonging to different batches, but as per the inventory report, more or less the weight of the five capsules drawn from 5 different strips was found near to .53 grams each (though it is mentioned in the inventory order as 53 grams and decimal seems to have been omitted due to some typographical mistake). Considering all these facts and circumstances, prima facie it seems that the weight of the recovered capsules is found more than 253 grams. At the case of deciding the bail application, no concrete opinion can be made and it would be considered on filing of challan or during the trial. ” Counsel further submits that since conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, he be granted the concession of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. It is submitted that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the actual quantity of narcotic substance and its classification as non-commercial quantity is a matter of trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. The observations made by the learned Trial Court while RASHMI 2026.07.14 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45471-2025 4 declining the bail application also indicate that the issue regarding the nature and quantity of the recovered substance requires consideration during the course of trial. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all such pleas before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering all the relevant factors, including the stage of trial, this Court finds that out of a total of 24 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. Petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2025. Observations made by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned order may have their bearing during the course of trial or at the stage of final adjudication. However, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that no other case is stated to be registered against him, this Court does not find any justification to further prolong his incarceration. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence RASHMI 2026.07.14 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45471-2025 5 available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 7. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.14 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document