CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106+229) CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.07.2026 JARNAIL SINGH ALIAS JAILA … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) CRM-27862-2026 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The Panchayatinama (Annexure P-4) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case 1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 206 dated 09.10.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga (Annexure P-1). GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR came to be registered on the basis of a secret information received by the police, pursuant to which a naka was laid and the vehicle in question was intercepted. It is alleged that the present petitioner, along with two co- accused, namely Gurbhinder Singh @ Bhinda and Akashdeep Singh @ Akash, was travelling in a car bearing registration No. PB-05-AG-1922. Upon conducting a search of the vehicle, the investigating agency allegedly recovered 400 grams of heroin, concealed in the dashboard of the said car. The recovery was effected on the statement of ASI Surjit Singh No. 30/MOGA, whereupon the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused. The prosecution further alleges that the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered is owned by the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail primarily on the ground of parity with co-accused Gurbhinder Singh @ Bhinda, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-7754-2026 (O&M). It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than nine months and the trial is progressing at a snail's pace, with no immediate likelihood of its conclusion. It is argued that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that although the vehicle from which the alleged contraband was recovered is registered in the name of the petitioner, the same had been borrowed by co-accused Gurbhinder Singh and Akashdeep Singh for their personal use. It is GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) -:3:- contended that, at the time of the alleged recovery, co-accused Akashdeep Singh was driving the vehicle, whereas Gurbhinder Singh was occupying the front passenger seat, and the petitioner was neither present in the vehicle nor in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. It is, therefore, argued that no material exists to establish the petitioner's conscious possession or complicity in the alleged offence and, consequently, he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel, while placing reliance upon the impugned order and the material collected during the course of investigation, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It has been contended that, having regard to the gravity and nature of the allegations, the recovery effected in the present case, and the stage of the proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Accordingly, learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book, the status report and the material placed on record with their able assistance. 6. Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, I find no merit in the present petition. The prosecution case reveals that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, was travelling in a vehicle registered in his own name when, acting upon a credible secret information, the investigating agency intercepted the vehicle and effected recovery of 400 grams of heroin, constituting a commercial quantity, from GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) -:4:- the dashboard of the said vehicle. The rigours governing offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, therefore, stand attracted. 6.1. The principal plank of the petitioner's case is founded upon the principle of parity with co-accused Gurbhinder Singh @ Bhinda. However, the said contention is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the order granting bail to Gurbhinder Singh would reveal that the concession was extended to him primarily on the ground that the prosecution had failed, at that stage, to prima facie establish as to which of the occupants of the vehicle was in conscious possession of the contraband. The factual matrix pertaining to the present petitioner, however, stands on an altogether different footing. 6.2. Admittedly, the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered is owned by the present petitioner. The ownership of the vehicle constitutes a significant distinguishing circumstance, which prima facie connects the petitioner with the conveyance used for the alleged transportation of the contraband. At this stage, such circumstance cannot be lightly brushed aside. The plea that the vehicle had allegedly been borrowed by the co-accused is a matter of evidence, which can only be tested during trial and cannot, by itself, dilute the prima facie case emerging from the record. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Gurbhinder Singh, whose role and factual position are materially distinguishable. 6.3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery of commercial quantity of heroin, the petitioner's prima facie nexus with the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered, and the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36847-2026 (O&M) -:5:- inapplicability of the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for extending the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either side during the course of trial, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.16 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document