CRM-M No.36451 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 251 CRM-M No.36451 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Dharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.107 dated 23.11.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22 [Section 29 added later on] of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Baljit Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 23.11.2025, pursuant to a secret information, from the possession of ‘Akashdeep’ and ‘Gurpreet Singh’ (the petitioner herein), 960 intoxicating tablets of ‘Alprazolam’ (total weight 142.08 grams) were recovered. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.16 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.36451 of 2026 (O&M) 2 3. As per prosecution on recovery of above mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were completed and further investigation taken- up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than seven months and twenty days, and that he has clean antecedents. In addition to above, it has been contended, by learned counsel for the petitioner, that instant case is suffering from the defects of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act, and that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of nine prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined, so far. 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the recovery of contraband from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.16 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.36451 of 2026 (O&M) 3 commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions, enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case the allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his co-accused ‘Akashdep’ was found in possession of 960 intoxicating tablets of ‘Alprazolam’ and the total weight of the above mentioned tablets comes out to be 142.08 grams. Thus the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the commercial quantity. In view of above, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act are complied with, by the petitioner, he cannot be accorded the benefit of bail. 11. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analysed, it transpires that any of the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, does not stand complied with in the present case. Thus, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 12. It is also relevant to mention here that in the present case the relaxation from twin conditions has been sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration. However, in view of the fact that the total custody period of the petitioner is less than 8 months, it cannot be observed that there is delay in trial and the petitioner is being subjected to prolong incarceration. 13. As far as the arguments with regard to non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act are concerned, in my opinion, the above mentioned issue can MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.16 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.36451 of 2026 (O&M) 4 be determined only on appreciation of entire evidence of the prosecution, and such opportunity is not available to this Court, while dealing with petition for regular bail. 14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby observed that for want of necessary compliance of twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Thus, the present petition is held to devoid of merits. Hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.16 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document