CRM-M-38991-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-38991-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 KARAN ....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondents(s) CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present : Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab. ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.72 dated 12.05.2026, under Sections 21(B), 27-A (Section 29 added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station A Division, Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, has clean antecedents, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the alleged recovery is of 11 grams of heroin, which is non-commercial quantity, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is further submitted that no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The petitioner has remained in custody since 12.05.2026. Therefore, learned counsel prays for concession of regular bail. 3. Per contra, Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail by contending that the petitioner was apprehended and 11 grams of heroin along with ₹500/- drug money was recovered from the conscious DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.24 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38991-2026 (O&M) 2 possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the proceedings were videographed through the e-Sakshya App, the contraband was properly sealed, and the mandatory procedure under the NDPS Act, including preparation of the report under Section 57, was complied with. It is further contended that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations under the NDPS Act, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel has also filed custody certificate and as per which, petitioner is in custody for last 02 months 08 days. Further, learned State counsel could not deny the fact that the alleged recovery falls within the non-commercial quantity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for 02 months 08 days coupled with the facts that recovery from the petitioner is non- commercial along with the fact that he has clean antecedants and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to the concession of regular bail. 7. In light of above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The petitioner shall, however, be released on the following conditions: DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.24 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38991-2026 (O&M) 3 i. The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him. ii. The petitioner will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence. iii. The petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned. iv. The petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case the petitioner does not possess a passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. 8. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and this order shall not be considered as parity qua any other co-accused in any manner whatsoever. 9. It is further made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Deepak Patwal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether reportable Yes/No DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.24 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document