CRM-M No.20806 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 309 CRM-M No.20806 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Manish Arora @ Chand ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 112 21.12.2024 Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana 18 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) 2. As per the allegations, on 21.12.2024, on receipt of a secret information, the accused Gagan and Ravi Kumar were apprehended and recovery of 3 Kgs. 500 grams of opium was effected from their conscious possession. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.20806 of 2026 -2- nominated the petitioner as supplier of the contraband. The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2025. It was revealed that the vehicle used at the time of recovery was registered in the name of Sarabjit Arora, sister-in-law of the petitioner, who recorded a statement that she had given her scooter to the petitioner on 20.12.2024 and later on came to know that the petitioner had given the same to the co-accused Ravi Kumar and Gagan who were using the same. Investigation now stands completed. 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 the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody for a period of about 7 months. His antecedents are clean. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was the supplier of the contraband to the co-accused from whom recovery had been effected. The bank account statement of the petitioner has been obtained which shows that on 18.12.2024, an amount of Rs.70,396/- was transferred in his account from Paytm of the co-accused Ravi Kumar from whom recovery of contraband has been effected. His complicity in the crime stands established. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.20806 of 2026 -3- is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have been supplying contraband to the co-accused Ravi Kumar and Gagan. He has been named on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Ravi Kumar. The bank account statement of the petitioner has disclosed that an amount of Rs.70,396/- was transferred in his account by the co-accused Ravi Kumar, just before he was apprehended with the contraband. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 24.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document