225+228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M No.25850 of 2026 Date of Decision:-27.07.2026 Akashdeep Singh alias Boxer …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. (2) CRM-M No.26633 of 2026 Rohit @ Ganji …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. (3) CRM-M No.26737 of 2026 Harmesh @ Meesa @ Ramesh Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-25850-2026. Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-26633 & 26737-2026. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of three petitions titled above, YAG DUTT 2026.07.27 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.25850 of 2026 and 2 connected cases -2- preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No.0051, dated 06.02.2026 registered under Sections 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. 2. Custody certificates dated 24.07.2026/25.07.2026 filed in Court today, are taken on record. 3. On the basis of a secret information, one Manpreet Singh was apprehended on 06.02.2026 and 500 grams heroin (commercial quantity) is alleged to have been recovered from him. During interrogation, he is stated to have named Rohit and Harmesh, who were arrested on 07.02.2026. However, no recovery was made from them. During their interrogation, Rohit and Harmesh named Akashdeep Singh who was arrested on 12.02.2026 but again, no recovery was made from him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the main accused Manpreet Singh is already in custody since the day of his arrest. The petitioners have been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by Manpreet Singh and subsequently, petitioner Akashdeep Singh was nominated on the basis of disclosure statements of petitioners Rohit and Harmesh but no recovery was effected from either of the petitioners. It has been submitted that there is no other evidence even remotely linking YAG DUTT 2026.07.27 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.25850 of 2026 and 2 connected cases -3- the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offence. It has been submitted that the petitioners are in custody since the day of their arrest; more than 05 months have elapsed; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail applications stating that the investigation is still pending and final report has not been submitted. It has been pointed out that there are a couple of cases listed against petitioner Akashdeep Singh under the NDPS Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Concededly, the main accused Manpreet Singh is in custody from whom 500 grams of heroin is alleged to have been recovered. It is also a conceded position that petitioners Rohit and Harmesh were nominated as accused on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by Manpreet Singh and petitioner Akashdeep Singh was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statements suffered by petitioners Rohit and Harmesh. However, no recovery was effected from any of the petitioners nor is there any other evidence against them. Though investigation has not been completed, the same would not act to the detriment of the petitioners, who are already in custody for the last more than 05 months. As to whether they were actually involved in the offence or not shall be determined when the trial concludes, which shall take a YAG DUTT 2026.07.27 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.25850 of 2026 and 2 connected cases -4- sufficiently long time. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer. 7.1. The pendency of other cases against petitioner Akashdeep would not be very relevant at the stage of grant of regular bail, for the same should not act to his detriment. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. 9. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 27, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.27 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.