CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50079 50079 50079 50079---- 209 209 209 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sandeep Singh @ Soni State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section Substances Act, 1985 added later on 2. accused of being involved in grams of Heroin 3. in custody since been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. argued that mandatory ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Sandeep Singh @ Soni versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Jaskamal Singh Grewal, Advocate Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0129 dated ences punishable under Section 21B of the Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Sections 27, 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act grams of Heroin allegedly recovered from him Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 19.07.2025. Learned counsel been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50079 50079 50079 50079----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: September 12 September 12 September 12 September 12,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 19.07.2025, registered for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (Sections 27, 29 of the NDPS Act Sardulgarh, District Mansa. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 72 him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (Sections 27, 29 of the NDPS Act an 72 that the petitioner is the petitioner has Learned counsel has further been MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.12 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50079 50079 50079 50079----2025 2025 2025 2025 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner is a man aged 34 years and is the sole bread-earner of his family. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.09.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. The culmination of investigation as also the trial emanating therefrom, in case occasion so arises, will, indubitably, take long time. It is not in dispute that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 72 grams of Herion, which is non-commercial in nature. In view of this, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in this case. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 11.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.12 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50079 50079 50079 50079----2025 2025 2025 2025 01 month and 21 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.12 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50079 50079 50079 50079----2025 2025 2025 2025 (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 12 September 12 September 12 September 12,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.12 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment