222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25828-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Manpreet Singh @ Paras …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the fifth petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.27 dated 18.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 21, 25 of NDPS Act and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act 1959 and Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on, at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. As per prosecution version, on the basis of the secret information, the petitioner was apprehended by the police party at the spot and 260 grams of heroin and 6 live cartridges and country made pistol was recovered from his conscious possession on 18.02.2024, which is marginally above commercial quantity. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and no recovery was effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 18.02.2024 and the final report under HEMLATA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25828-2026 -2- Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented against him. Trial is likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Thus, it is prayed that he may be released on regular bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments in (i) CRM-M-37684-2021, Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 14.02.2022; (ii) CRM-M-8212-2022, Tajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 03.03.2022 and (iii) CRM-M-35186-2016, Manjit Kaur @ Jeeto vs. State of Punjab, decided on 01.12.2016. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, custody period of the petitioner and also the fact that the quantity of alleged contraband is marginally above the ‘commercial quantity’, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 27.07.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document