REKHA SHARMA 2026.07.07 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. She submits that co-accused Mubarik was erroneously granted bail and an application for cancellation of the same is being moved since the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted in that case. She submits that there is another case registered against the petitioner under Section 22-B read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Concededly, the petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and was implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of the main accused Mubarik and no recovery has been made from the petitioner. He is in custody for the last four months ten days. Final report has been submitted and the trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, 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 on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Rekha REKHA SHARMA 2026.07.07 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh