CRM-M-13315-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13315-2026 Date of decision: 20th July, 2026 Harjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 85 dated 09.06.2024 registered under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Special Task Force (STF), SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of rukka submitted by ASI Des Raj, who along with other police officials was present at a naka laid at main road, Talwandi Sabo, in connection with checking of suspicious vehicles. As per the allegations, at about 2:30 A.M., one car bearing registration No. PB-80-3745 was intercepted due to suspicion. The driver attempted to reverse the vehicle and flee from the spot but could not PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13315-2026 -2- succeed due to the narrow road. The occupants of the vehicle disclosed their names as Bunty Singh and Bablu @ Jony. On conducting search of the vehicle, three plastic bags lying on the rear seat were recovered, which were found containing 54 kg of poppy husk. The recovered contraband as well as the vehicle were taken into police possession after completing the necessary formalities. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Accused Bunty and Bablu @ Jony were formally arrested. It was further revealed that the vehicle from which the recovery had been effected was registered in the name of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act were added vide DDR No. 10 dated 01.09.2024. The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure statement and only for the reason that the vehicle involved in the occurrence was registered in his name. It is contended that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that he was not named in the FIR. He has remained in custody for over 08 months. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as only three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is also argued that his involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny him the concession of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13315-2026 -3- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. His antecedents are not clean, as several other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act have been registered against him and he has also been convicted in one such case. It is contended that the car owned by the petitioner was found to have been used in the commission of the present offence, thereby prima facie indicating his active complicity. It is further submitted that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, as the recovery effected is of commercial quantity. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of 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. Admittedly, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the car owned by the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not found present in the said vehicle, his prima facie complicity in the crime stands established. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean. Apart from his involvement in four other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act, he is stated to have been convicted in one such case, as reflected in the custody certificate. The trial is going on at a proper pace. Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 03 have already been examined and 06 have been given up. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13315-2026 -4- petitioner, his criminal antecedents, and the facts and circumstances noticed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition 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 20th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document