CRM-M-43165-2025 -1- 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43165-2025 Date of Decision:13.08.2025 Kajal …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, 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 in case FIR No.21 dated 07.03.2025 registered under Sections 21, 21-B, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Daba, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). 2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Inspector Navdeep Singh. As per him, the police had received a secret information that certain accused were involved in pooling money and using the same for buying and selling the contraband. Consequently, a raid was conducted on a house, where Kamaljit Kaur, Harjinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh @ Kali, Kajal, Karamjit Singh, Sahil Kumar and Ramandeep Singh were found present and on search of the house, a polythene envelop containing 50 grams of heroin was recovered. 10 grams of heroin was also recovered at the instance of accused Sandeep Singh from the refrigerator lying there. Thus, recovery of total 60 grams of heroin was effected from the accused. HEMLATA 2025.08.13 02:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43165-2025 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the quantity of 60 grams of heroin does not fall within the amibit of ‘commercial quantity’ and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not applied to the facts of the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025 and is in custody since then. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented against him. He further submits that now the charge has been framed by the trial Court and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. Even the petitioner was never involved in any other case. 4. 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 and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the quantity of contraband, which was allegedly recovered from the accused, does not fall within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months and is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. 7. 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 her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 13.08.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.08.13 02:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document