CRM-M-27134-2026 -1 (232) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27134-2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 SANDEEP SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.111 dated 08.11.2024 under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 111 of the BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Sandeep Singh, the driver of the motorcycle was arrested while travelling with one Dharvinder Singh (granted bail vide order dated 30.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-46891-2025) who was a pillion rider and from the bag on the handle of the motorcycle, 700 tablets of tramadol came to be recovered. Separately, Amritpal Singh (granted bail vide order dated 18.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-54037-2025) was travelling on an Activa from whom 250 tablets of Tramadol came to be recovered. Sandeep Singh disclosed the names of Ranjit Singh @ Kala (granted bail vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in CRM-M-42564-2025) and Shaukat Ali @ Shoku. VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.15 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27134-2026 -2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is violation of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including Section 50. The recovery is of non-commercial quantity of contraband. As the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2024 but only 01 of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Offences of this kind are on the rise and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, is in custody since 08.11.2024 but only 01 of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and that the recovery is of non-commercial quantity of contraband. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly, the recovery from the petitioner is of non- commercial quantity of contraband. Therefore, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 08.11.2024 but only 01 of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.15 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27134-2026 -3 soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 7. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Sandeep Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 14.07.2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.15 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document