CRM-M-14804-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-14804-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:22.07.2026 Shoyab @ Shoib ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the third petition for grant of regular bail as filed by the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.116, dated 22.4.2025, registered under Sections 22 and 27-A of the NDPS Act (offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added lateron), at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. His previous petitions bearing CRM-M-488810-2025 and CRM-M-65870-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn on 06.11.2025 and 29.01.2026 as passed by this Court. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 22.04.2025, on the basis of suspicion accused Garuav Khosla @ Ginni and Prabhjot Singh @ Laddi were apprehended. On conducting search, 1030 tablets marked Alprazolam were recovered from their conscious possession, which were taken into possession by the police. The petitioner and co- HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14804-2026 (O&M) -2- accused were formally arrested. Accused Gaurav Khosla @ Ginni suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased the recovered contraband from accused Sumit @ Mannu, who was nominated as accused and was arrested. On disclosure of accused Sumit @ Mannu, the petitioner and Surjit Singh were nominated as accused. Petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2025. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered 1200 tablets of Alprazolam, which were taken into custody. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. Co.-accused Sumit @ Mannu has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. His further incarceration is not going to serve any fruitful purpose. His antecedents are clean. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as commercial quantity of intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam salt had been recovered at his instance. He was also the supplier of such tablets to the co-accused. The trial is going at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to show that there is any undue delay in conclusion thereof. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14804-2026 (O&M) -3- 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is not only alleged to have been supplier of intoxicating tablets to the co-accused but at his own instance also commercial quantity of such tablets are alleged to have been recovered. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner which are serious in nature. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracted in this case. The case of the petitioner cannot be stated to be at parity with the co-accused, who had been extended benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail, the attendant facts and circumstances and coupled with the fact that the present one is the third petition for grant of bail and being successive one with no drastic change in the circumstances, the same cannot be considered to be maintainable. As such, this Court finds no compelling grounds to allow the present petition and the 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 dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 22.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document