CRM-M-8360-2025 216 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8360-2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Satnam Singh .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the official respondents not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily and to not compel him for undergoing dope test, which is stated to be in violation of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 (7) SCC 263. 2. In compliance of order dated 02.08.2025, short reply by way of an affidavit of Mohit Kumar Agarwal, Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kharar-2 District SAS Nagar (Mohali) already filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is taken on record. The relevant paragraphs of the reply are extracted hereinbelow: “5. That the brief facts of FIR No. 40 (Supra) are that on 01.05.2025, the police party, while on patrol and checking of suspicious persons involved in the sale/purchase/consumption of drugs, the police party was SONIA BURA 2025.09.30 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8360-2025 present at Bus Stand Block, when Harmandeep Singh, Sarpanch, Village Boothgarh, met the police party and submitted an application stating that one Satnam Singh son of Prithi Singh, resident of his village, is addicted to drugs. Many complaints have also been received in the village regarding his drug consumption, and today also he is roaming in the village and appears to be under the influence of drugs. He further stated that the youth of his village and other villages may start consuming drugs, which is likely to spoil the atmosphere of Punjab. Therefore, it is requested that his dope test be conducted, and if the report of the dope test comes negative, he may be released; but if the report comes positive, then appropriate legal action be taken. 6. That acting on the complaint of Sarpanch Harmandeep Singh, Satnam Singh was taken along to the Government Hospital, Phase 6, Mohali, where his dope test was conducted. The report of the dope test stated as follows: "Dope test done on 01-05-2025 at 2:36 PM. Dope test out to be Positive for Buprenorphine, came Benzodiazepines, and Morphine. Signed/- Dr. Samridhi, Medical Officer, PCMS- 25, Reg. No. PMC 56044, Civil Hospital, Mohali.” 7. That therefore, on the basis of the report of the aforesaid dope test, FIR No. 40 dated 01.05.2025 under Section 27 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Block Majri, District SAS Nagar against accused 1) Satnam Singh (Present Petitioner), and he was arrested in the present case. 8 That on 02.05.2025, during questioning of accused Satnam Singh, person namely Jagjit Singh @ Bunty was SONIA BURA 2025.09.30 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8360-2025 nominated as accused, and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added in the present FIR No. 40 (Supra) vide DDR No. 11 dated 02.05.2025. Thereafter, the dope test of accused Jagjit Singh @ Bunty was also conducted at the Government Hospital, Phase 6, Mohali. The report of the dope test stated as follows: "Dope test done on 02-05-2025 at 2:04 PM. Result came out to be Positive for Morphine and Buprenorphine." xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx 13. That in this regard the petitioner/accused Satnam Singh was asked to come present at the police station, however he did not turn up and instead has created a false story stating that he is being harassed by the police department, however, that is not the case and he was only being called by the police department to verify the details of the source report. That it is humbly submitted that such drug addicts are not summoned for any harassment, nor are they unnecessarily troubled or harassed in any manner.” 3. When reply was perused, it transpired that no act has been done by the respondents to harass the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition. 4. The present petition stands dismissed accordingly. 5. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. 26.09.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.09.30 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document