CRM-M-13392-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRM-M-13392-2026 Date of decision : 21.07.2026 Date of uploading : 21.07.2026 Pargat Singh @ Lovely ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. S.S. Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.496 dated 27.11.2025 under Sections 21-B, 27-A of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Officer in Charge Police Station City Faridkot, "Jai Hind" today I, ASI along with ASI Gurmeet Singh 561/Faridkot, Constable Arshdeep Singh 90/Faridkot, PC Harjit Singh No.32930, riding in a government vehicle No. PB65-BL-6608, whose driver is ASI Sukhdev Singh No. 796/Faridkot, regarding patrolling for checking suspicious elements in connection with the campaign launched against drugs along with laptop printer, investigation bag and drug detection kit going from Medical College Faridkot, Old Jail via Link Road, Faridkot Cantonment were on our way to Dhudi Mohalla, etc., When the police party while patrolling the time must have been around 09.25 PM when it reached near Jahaj ground on the backside of medical campus, on kuchcha road Bajigar Basti, then on the bend of the kuchcha road, two cut-surd young men were seen standing who on seeing the vehicle of the police party, they threw a heavy polythene from their possession on the ground and started to slip away, when I, ASI on the basis of suspicion, with the help of fellow officials quickly and efficiently nabbed them. Before searching them, an attempt was made to include a private witness from the public from the surrounding area, but as everyone expressed their own compulsion, no one could be joined. Then I, ASI instructed JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13392-2026 -2- Constable Arshdeep Singh No. 90/Faridkot to conduct videography on my mobile phone through e-Sakshi. Then I, ASI asked the names and addresses of the persons so nabbed. Then the first person told his name as Pargat Singh alias Lovely, son of Gora Singh, son of Jora Singh, resident of Bajigar Basti, near Primary School, Faridkot, and the second person told his name as Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo son of Gora Singh, son of Jora Singh, resident of Bajigar Basti, near Primary School, Faridkot, to whom I, ASI informing about my identity and that of fellow officials, said that my name is ASI Sukhmander Singh No. 79/Faridkot and I am posted as an investigating officer at Police Station City-2, Faridkot. My uniform has a name plate in Punjabi with my name. My fellow officials are also posted at Police Station City-2, Faridkot. There is a suspicion that the transparent polythene you threw on the ground contains some narcotics, which is why the transparent polythene you threw on the ground and yourself have to be searched. However, you have the legal right under the law made under the Narcotics Act to have the transparent polythene thrown by you on the ground and yourself searched by a magistrate or a gazetted officer, who can be called without delay on the spot, or you can also be taken to them. Then Pargat Singh alias Lovely and Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo aforementioned thought for a while and respectively said that you have already come to know about the presence of Chitta (heroin) in the transparent polythene thrown by us on the ground, which is why we do not want to call any magistrate or any gazetted officer on the spot. We trust you, you can search the transparent polythene thrown by us on the ground and our persons. According to whose consent, separate Consent memo under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were typed and printed out on a laptop, The rights in the above Consent memo were made known to the above named Pargat Singh alias Lovely, who, being aware of his rights, signed the Consent memo in Punjabi. The rights in the above Consent memo were made known to the above named Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo, who, being aware of his rights, placed his left thumb on the Consent memo. On the Consent memo Gurmeet Singh No. 561/Faridkot and Constable Arshdeep Singh No. 90/Faridkot affixed their respective signatures as witnesses. Then I, ASi, in the presence of the witnesses present, from Pargat Singh alias Lovely and Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo aforementioned got picked the transparent polythene lying on the ground from them only and opened it and checked it, from which a light brown coloured substance was recovered, which was tested by taking a sample from the light brown coloured substance through narcotic testing and adding one drop of A-1 SOLUTION and three drops of A-2 SOLUTION and the colour of the sample was purple and it was found to be heroin as per the kit's guideline. The recovered heroin was weighed on a small computer scale, which, along with the transparent polythene, was 50 grams. Which was put in a cloth and a bundle was prepared. The cloth bundle of heroin was sealed by I, ASI with my seal letter SS. The sample seal was prepared separately by putting 3/3 seals on three layers of paper. The sealed bundle of heroin with the sample seal was seized by the police through the Recovery memo of Heroin. On the memo ASI Gurmeet Singh No. 561/Faridkot and Constable Arshdeep Singh No. 90/Faridkot put their respective signatures as witnesses. The NDPS ACT form 9 was completed. Then I ASI asked the abovementioned Pargat Singh alias Lovely and Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo separately that if you have any cash or any other valuable thing, then take it out and present it. Then Pargat Singh alias Lovely from the right pocket of the jacket he was wearing, colour dark green, took out Indian currency notes of Rs 100/100 and presented them. On counting, a total of 50 notes of Rs 100/100, totaling Rs 5,000/- of Indian Currency were recovered, about which Pargat Singh could not give any concrete answer. The recovered drug money was put in a cloth bundle and the bundle was prepared. Then I, ASI sealed the cloth bundle with my seal letter SS. The seal, being silver metal plated ring-shaped engraved in round form was handed over to Gurmeet Singh 561/Faridkot for future use. The sealed bundle of drug money through separate recovery memo of drug money, was taken into police custody. The recovery memo of drug money was prepared on which ASI Gurmeet Singh No. 561/Faridkot and Constable Arshdeep Singh put their respective signatures as witnesses. No other valuables or gold jewellery were recovered from Pargat Singh alias Lovely. On which search and seizure memo was prepared. On the memo, aforementioned Pargat Singh alias Lovely put his signatures in Punjabi and on the memo Gurmeet Singh No. 561/Faridkot and Constable Arshdeep Singh put their respective signatures as witnesses. Then I ASI asked the abovementioned Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo that if he has any cash or any valuables, then take them out and present them. Who turned out the pockets of the lower and jacket he was wearing and said in his own words that I do not have any cash or valuables, gold jewellery. On which search and seizure memo was prepared. On the memo, aforementioned Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo affixed his left thumb and on the memo Gurmeet Singh No. 561/Faridkot and JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13392-2026 -3- Constable Arshdeep Singh 90/Fardikot put their respective signatures as witnesses. In this manner, Pargat Singh alias Lovely and Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo aforementioned have committed offense under sections 21/B-27-A/61/85 NDPS ACT by keeping 50 grams of heroin and drug money amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in their possession. Therefore, ruqa against Pargat Singh alias Lovely and Lovepreet Singh alias Bhuppo son of Gora Singh son of Jora Singh, residents of Bajigar Basti, Faridkot near Primary School, is being typed on the laptop and the printout is being sent to the police station for registering a case through PC Harjit Singh No. 32930. The report under Section 42 of the NDPS ACT is being sent. Case be registered and the case number be marked. Special reports should be prepared. Senior Officers and Incharge PCR Faridkot should be informed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on account of his antecedents. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented qua the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 50 grams of heroin, which is a non-commercial quantity. Learned counsel has further argued that the State has sought to invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act on the ground that the amount of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the petitioner is drug money, but there is no tangible basis thereof except for the confessional statement of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.07.2026. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13392-2026 -4- available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 27.03.2026. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 50 grams of heroin, which is of a non-commercial quantity and, hence, does not attract the rigors of Section 37. In the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs.5,000/- recovered from the petitioner has been alleged to be the drug money by the prosecution/State, but the basis thereof is the confessional statement of the petitioner. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 07 months and 21 days & is shown to be involved in other case/FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13392-2026 -5- the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13392-2026 -6- the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 21.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.21 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document