CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M-7567-2026 Decided on :20.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi alias Ganna . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. IPS Deol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab . **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking concession of regular bail in FIR No. 77 dated 24.06.2024, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab. 2. As per the prosecution case, while the police party was conducting a special search operation, petitioner was noticed carrying a black polythene bag in his hand. On seeing the police party, he allegedly threw the bag inside the gate of his house and himself ran inside. He was immediately apprehended and, upon being questioned, disclosed his identity. The black polythene bag was searched, and 110 tablets containing salt Etizolam, weighing approximately 11.11 grams, were allegedly recovered therefrom. RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that prosecution version is inherently improbable inasmuch as the alleged contraband was of a small quantity and, if the petitioner had in fact been in conscious possession thereof, there was no reason for him to carry it in a separate polythene bag instead of keeping it in his pocket. It is further contended that petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024, i.e. for a period of more than two years. Despite such prolonged incarceration, out of total of 09 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. Since the trial is progressing at a slow pace and is not likely to conclude in the near future, learned counsel prays for the grant of the concession of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel refers to the details of the petitioner's criminal antecedents as recorded in the previous order dated 05.05.2026 and submits that petitioner already stands convicted in two cases under the provisions of NDPS Act i.e. FIR No. 67 dated 06.06.2022 and FIR No. 72 dated 26.05.2015. In view of petitioner's criminal antecedents and previous convictions, it is contended that he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book. 6. For reference, details of petitioner's criminal antecedents, as noticed in the previous order dated 05.05.2026, are reproduced hereinbelow: RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 3 FIR No. Dated Under Sections Police Station Convicted/under- trial 01 04.01.2022 61/1/14 of Excise Act Bhogpur, Jalandhar 14.02.2023 67 06.06.2022 21-A/22/61/85 of NDPS Act (added Section 29 of NDPS Act) Bhogpur, Jalandhar 29.11.2022 72 26.05.2015 22/61/85 of NDPS Act Bhogpur, Jalandhar 10.07.2018 124 17.10.2016 61/1/14 of Excise Act Bhogpur, Jalandhar 14.02.2023 153 02.07.2020 61/1/14 of Excise Act Bhogpur, Jalandhar 14.02.2023 250 06.11.2018 52-A of Prisons Act Kotwali, Kapurthala 29.04.2019 (under trial) It is evident from the above that the petitioner stands convicted in two cases under the provisions of NDPS Act i.e. FIR Nos. 67 and 72. 7. Recovery effected from the petitioner is stated to be 110 tablets containing salt ‘Etizolam’ weighing 11.11 grams, which is treated as a commercial quantity. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the issue regarding the potency of the salt ‘Etizolam’ vis-à-vis Alprazolam is pending consideration for 23.07.2026 before this Court in CRM-M-17105-2026. 8. Certain observations on the said issue have also been made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-24404-2025, titled as ‘Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab’, Date of Decision:09.07.2025. Relevant part of the said order reads as under: RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 4 “10. It transpires that the recovered contraband was analysed by the FSL and it was found to be containing the salt- Etizolam. The total weight of the tablets was assessed to be 2.76g. Further still, while deciding a regular bail petition in a case involving 7.2g of Etizolam, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Baljit Singh @ Mintu @ Baljit Gill vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-15588 of 2024 decided on 30.08.2024, speaking through Justice Anoop Chitkara, has opined as follows: “26. Even in the present case, the quantity of a manufactured drug i.e. Etizolam tablets and it is not a hard drug like heroin, charas, opium or other synthetic drugs, thus petitioner is entitled to bail given the ratio of Chitta Biswas @ Subhas(supra). ( wrongly mentioned as Chitra Basu’s) ” 11. Adverting to the matter at hand, the petitioner has allegedly been found in possession of 3 strips i.e. 30 tablets of Etizolam, weighing 2.76 g, marginally higher than the non-commercial quantity prescribed for the same. The recovered quantity exceeds the commercial quantity for the said salt only by 0.26g. In cases where the recovery only marginally breaches the threshold for commercial quantity of the alleged contraband, this Court has found it proper to grant regular bail. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments rendered by this Court in Davinder Singh alias Baba vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-64821-2023 decided on 25.01.2024, Gurmeet Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-1007-2024 decided on 15.01.2024, Ranjti Singh @ Ranjit Kumar vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-57185-2022 decided on 10.01.2023, Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-21460-2022 decided on 08.02.2023, Harjeet Singh alias Sonu vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M8242-2023 decided RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 5 on 15.01.2024, Jang Kanwar vs. State of Punjab in CRMM- 53415-2021 decided on 19.01.2022. 12. Moreover, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.10.2024 i.e. for about 9 months. The culpability of the petitioner, if any, would be determined at the time of trial, which is at the stage of prosecution witnesses. As such, no useful purpose will be served by his further detention. 13. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Pawan Kumar is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.” 9. Be that as it may, notwithstanding petitioner's criminal antecedents and his previous convictions, this Court is of the view that petitioner cannot be kept in custody indefinitely on that ground alone. Petitioner is in custody for a period of last about two years and two months. Out of total of 09 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined and the remaining 07 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. 10 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 11. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010168962026) CRM-M-7567-2026 6 shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. It is further made clear that if, in future, the petitioner is found to be directly involved in similar activities, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 12. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document