CRM-M-35979-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- CRM-M-35979-2026 Date of decision: 16th July, 2026 Lala Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Simranpreet Kaur Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The instant one is the second petition for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 216 dated 27.11.2019 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Boha, District Mansa. The previous petition bearing CRM-M-10777 of 2020 had been disposed of by directing the petitioner to be released on interim bail till 30.04.2021, while keeping it open for the learned trial Court to extend the period of interim bail, assessing the circumstances and evidence, or to dismiss the same in accordance with law. 2. As per the allegations, on 27.11.2019, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner was apprehended and recovery of 900 tablets PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.16 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35979-2026 -2- containing Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him. The total weight of the tablets came to 303.54 grams, which falls within the commercial quantity. As mentioned above, the petitioner had been extended the benefit of interim bail by this Court. The interim bail so granted to him was extended from time to time. However, vide order dated 01.06.2026, the learned Special Court, Mansa, declined to extend the said benefit and the petitioner was ordered to be taken into custody. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. After being extended the benefit of interim bail, he never misused the concession. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. His antecedents are clean. It is, thus, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner remained in custody for a period of one year and nine days prior to being extended the benefit of interim bail. Thereafter, he has now remained in custody for one month and seven days. The trial is at its PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.16 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35979-2026 -3- fag end, as 07 out of 10 prosecution witnesses stand examined and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 16th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.16 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document