CRM-M-34436-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 257 CRM-M-34436-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Jafar Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Navneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 0059 dated 01.03.2025, registered under Sections 22, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Tripuri, District Patiala. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 01.03.2025, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 100 grams of intoxicating powder containing Etizolam was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband, he was formally arrested at the spot. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34436-2026 (O&M) -2- been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him. No independent witness was joined at the time of effecting alleged recovery from the petitioner. The story put forth by the police party is concocted one. Mandatory provisions of the law were not followed at all. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. The trial is likely to take a long time. The petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2025. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record custody certificate of the petitioner, he has argued that the petitioner was apprehended by the police party on 01.03.2025 and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from his conscious possession. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against him. The petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. Trial is going at a proper pace. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in the similar offences. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended on 01.03.2025 while in illegal possession of commercial quantity of contraband. He is shown to be involved in one more case of similar nature. Since the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioner. As regards the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non- MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34436-2026 (O&M) -3- compliance of the statutory provisions of the law during investigation by the police party, the same have direct bearing on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS. The trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences can also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 07.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document