CRM-M-27061-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 CRM-M-27061-2026 Decided on : 22.07.2026 JAGDEEP SINGH @ JAGGA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga, aged about 32 years 43 24.02.2026 21, 27(A), 29 of NDPS Act Jandiala Amritsar Rural 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2026, at about 8:30 p.m., on the road leading from village Nawa Pind to village Tirathpura, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, petitioner-Jagdeep Singh alias Jagga, was apprehended while allegedly LAVISHA 2026.07.23 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27061-2026 2 being in conscious possession of 10 grams of heroin along with drug money amounting to Rs.700/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no such recovery was ever effected from his conscious possession. It is further contended that present case has been foisted upon him once again. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in judicial custody for a period of about 4 months and 26 days, and even trial has not commenced, so far. Thus, it is prayed that petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail in the present case. 4. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 04 months and 26 days period inside jail. 5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that petitioner is also involved in a similar case, i.e., FIR No. 43 dated 16.03.2025, registered under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner is a habitual offender and, as such, does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the present case. LAVISHA 2026.07.23 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27061-2026 3 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid case, alleged recovery from the petitioner was only 5 grams of heroin and he has already been granted the concession of regular bail therein. 7. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record available before it. 8. Alleged recovery effected from the petitioner in the present case is 10 grams of heroin. Although the quantity is almost double the quantity allegedly recovered in the earlier case, but it is still far below the threshold of commercial quantity, i.e. 250 grams under the NDPS Act. Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 4 months and 26 days, and trial has not yet commenced. 9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, quantity allegedly recovered, period of custody already undergone, and the fact that trial is yet to commence, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner deserves to be extended the concession of regular bail in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/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. LAVISHA 2026.07.23 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27061-2026 4 10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 12. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 13. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.23 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh