CRM-M-37300-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M-37300-2026 Date of decision : 03.09.2026 Date of uploading : 03.09.2026 SHER SINGH @ SHERA ………….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.340 dated 25.12.2025 under Sections 21/27A/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the alleged recovery of 15 grams of heroin, along with a sum of ₹1,200/- stated to be drug money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented. Learned JATIN 2026.09.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37300-2026 -2- counsel has further urged that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 15 grams of heroin, which is non- commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further urged that the police have sought to invoke the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act by treating the amount of Rs. 1,200/- allegedly recovered from the petitioner as drug money, but the basis thereof, being the confessional statement of the petitioner, is untenable in law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 08 months. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man aged about 34 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitoiner are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 06.06.2026. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 15 grams of heroin, which is indubitably non-commercial in nature. Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked as a bar on this account. However, a bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is invoked on account of the description of the recovery of Rs. 1,200/- as drug money, JATIN 2026.09.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37300-2026 -3- the basis thereof, at least at this juncture, being the confessional statement of the petitioner, which would be delved into during the course of trial. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 08 months and 07 days & is shown to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial JATIN 2026.09.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37300-2026 -4- is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of JATIN 2026.09.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37300-2026 -5- opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ` JATIN 2026.09.03 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document