CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 1 214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31257-2026 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 YADWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-35122-2026 JASHANPREET SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. P.S. Bal, Advocate and Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present second petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0023 dated 09.05.2025, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kheri Naudh Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, during the pendency of the trial. There are two petitions arising out of the same FIR. Since the facts and questions involved in both the petitions are identical, the same are being taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. As per the prosecution, on 09.05.2025, SI/SHO Balbir Singh along with other police officials was present on patrol duty and reached near the pond road, Village Kotla Badla, where three persons, namely Amrik Singh, KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 2 Jashanpreet Singh and Yadwinder Singh, were noticed standing in front of a house. On seeing the police party, they allegedly tried to enter the house and were apprehended on suspicion. The accused persons were apprised of their legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. All three opted to have their search conducted before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, DSP Raminder Singh, PPS, was called to the spot. After being apprised of their legal right by the DSP, all three accused consented to their personal search being conducted by him. During the search of petitioner/Jashanpreet Singh, one black-coloured polythene bag was allegedly recovered from the right pocket of his trouser, containing three injections of Buprenorphine Injection IP Leegesic, each containing 2 ml. He allegedly failed to produce any licence or permit for possessing the said injections. Similarly, during the search of petitioner/Yadwinder Singh, one black-coloured plastic bag was allegedly recovered from the right pocket of the lower worn by him, containing three injections of Buprenorphine Injection IP Leegesic, each containing 2 ml. He also allegedly failed to produce any licence or permit for possessing the said injections. The recoveries from both the petitioners were separately converted into parcels and sealed with the seals of the DSP and the SHO. Separate recovery memos were prepared and the sealed parcels along with the samples of the seals were taken into police possession. The recovery proceedings were also videographed on the e-Sakshya application. On the basis of the aforesaid recoveries, the present FIR was registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act against the petitioners and the other accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 3 attributed to each of them is only three injections of Buprenorphine, each containing 2 ml. It is further submitted that the recoveries from the two petitioners are separate and cannot be clubbed together for determining the nature of the quantity. Thus, prima facie, the alleged recovery attributed to each petitioner falls within the non-commercial quantity. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 09.05.2025 and have already undergone substantial period of custody. The investigation is complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars for an indefinite period. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioners have previous cases under the NDPS Act, in one case the petitioner has been acquitted and in another the sentence imposed has already been undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of CRM-M-43558 of 2025 and CRM-M-50386-2025 seeking regular bail in the present FIR; however, the said petition was dismissed as not pressed at that stage vide order dated 19.03.2026. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificates dated 21.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificates, the petitioners have already undergone a total custody period of 01 year 03 months and 21 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposed the bail and submits that both the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and have been found in possession of contraband. It is submitted that from petitioner Jashanpreet KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 4 Singh, three injections of Buprenorphine Injection IP LEEGESIC, each containing 2 ml, were recovered from the right pocket of his trouser, whereas from petitioner Yadwinder Singh, three injections of the same substance, each containing 2 ml, were recovered from the right pocket of his lower. Both the petitioners failed to produce any licence or permit authorising possession of the said injections. Learned State counsel further submits that both the petitioners are involved in other cases under the NDPS Act and, therefore, their antecedents also weigh against grant of the concession of regular bail. 7. Be that as it may, considering that the petitioners have been in custody since 09.05.2025 and that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined so far, it is evident that the trial is likely to take some considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. The investigation already stands completed and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. More importantly, as per the legal proposition relied upon by the petitioners, the recovery effected from each petitioner individually has to be considered qua the concerned petitioner and the recovery allegedly effected from a co-accused cannot be clubbed with such recovery for determining the quantity of contraband attributed to the petitioner. In the present case, the alleged recovery from each of the petitioners is of 03 injections of Buprenorphine, each containing 02 ml. Thus, the alleged recovery individually attributed to each petitioner does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 5 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event they are in possession of a passport, they shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioners their permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-31257-2026 and 01 connected case 6 shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioners shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioners shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioners shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless their personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. They shall not absent themselves from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or their unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of other connected case. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.03 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh