CRM-M-16971-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-16971-2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 HARPAL SINGH @ PALAA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C) with a prayer for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 154 dated 29.05.2025 under Section 21-C/ 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from his possession 516 grams of heroin was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2025 and prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. P.S.Pandher, Asst. A.G.Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-16971-2026 2 serious. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the contraband allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. At this stage, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. Accordingly, no ground is made out for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 8. In view of the above terms, the present petition is dismissed. (H.S.GREWAL) 07.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh