-1- CRM-M-65366-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CRM-M-65366-2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 BHAGWAN SINGH @ MANJIT SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT Present:- Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) CRM-20954-2026 On the oral request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is taken up on Board today itself. Learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the application. Permitted to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn. Main case: 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 of Cr.P.C) for grant of bail pending trial/ Regular Bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 79 dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P/1), registered with P.S. Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib under Section 22(c), 27(a), 29 of NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Sukhwinder Singh and Harjaspreet Singh were allegedly found in conscious possession of 175 injections of Buprenorphine and 175 vials of Avil without any valid licence or permit. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the disclosure RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- CRM-M-65366-2025 statement of co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, the present petitioner along with Munish @ Ashish Vishkarma, came to be nominated in the case. Subsequently, on 23.07.2022, the said accused namely Sunil @ Ashish Vishkarma was arrested from his rented accommodation at Saharanpur. From his alleged possession, 89,520 capsules of Proxyvon Spas, 97,200 tablets of Alprazolam, 4,98,000 tablets of Lomotil (totaling 5,95,200 tablets/capsules), along with 15,575 injections of Buprenorphine and 21,200 injections of Avil, were recovered. During investigation he has suffered disclosure statement that the intoxicant contraband recovered form him was supplied by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner in the Court today after obtaining no objection certificate from the previous counsel and the same is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded while in custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged recovery or the offences in question. It is further submitted that co-accused namely Ashish Vishwakarma has already been granted concession of regular bail by this High Court in CRM-M-15078- 2026 decided on 27.04.2026. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2023. 5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chintan Rajubhai RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- CRM-M-65366-2025 Panseriya vs. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No. 439 of 2026, decided on 28.01.2026), wherein it has been observed as under: “We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. We are mindful of the fact that the prosecution is for the offence punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. At the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 3 years and 6 months and prosecution intends to examine as many as 159 witnesses. Examination of 159 witnesses or even 50% of the same is going to take a pretty long time. At times, we wonder why prosecution wants to examine so many witnesses and thereby prolong the trial and delay the same. We have observed in number of orders that the prosecution should examine important witnesses and try to establish its case. There is no point in multiplying the witnesses on one and the same issue.” 6. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reginamary Chellamani Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2026, decided on 05.02.2026), wherein it has been held as under: 3. The amount of contraband substance allegedly seized from the person of the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is stated to be above the commercial quantity prescribed in that regard under the aforestated enactment. We, however, find that the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days as on date. 4. Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already suffered and as an identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, on the same flight, has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage. 7. Notice of motion. 8. Mr. P.S.Pandher, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail on the ground of the gravity of the allegations. He has filed the short reply as well as RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- CRM-M-65366-2025 custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years 01 month and 01 day and involved in 04 more cases. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. After considering the rival submissions and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years 01 month and 01 day; co-accused has been granted bail and the trial is progressing at a slow pace. In view of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner, the likelihood of further delay in conclusion of the trial, and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 11. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 12. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- CRM-M-65366-2025 13. It is clarified that in case the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal activity while on bail, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of the bail granted to him. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.22 17.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh