-1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

    Decided on: 16.04.2026
 …...Petitioner
Versus
  .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: 











Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab


****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 






 




 
!"#
#

$!%
&'&

#"
"

" 



"
()*
!+

''&'&,


',
$%
-$&%

!


&&
&-
&+

!. 

+,
"

 

! 

. 
*"

&






()*


"


 


/
0







#


!
.
 


1 "


! 

2
'-'&'&,


3''

0


#


 




0



4


 
0
"

0
0#"

 







SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
    -2-




 "


4

 





()*
0
"


',
$%

!
. "
"








'-'&'&,
0
"





 

 "




0

5
"

"


 





"
4





4
0

 






)
0

 





'-'&'&,

 "0


/
*

 


4


 


!
.






4

 "






 




'
"
4
0
$ 6 %
0





-$&%

!


&&
&-

&+
!. 
0





7










 
 



8











 "


'
"

 6 


 

8







5
 
0

"

9 
5


"


-

!. 

+,






8






'+'&'&,8
9


*
:
/
*

 

"



" 




''+&'&,




;"

<
*"
$4
9&%8
SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
    -3-







 

&

()*


0
'&
()*


"


!. 

+,8

0
#



 8






=




"


58




















 



" 
 



!



,



/
.>
=
0



<



 

9


0

 "




,'&'&?




" 










0









4


 
0
"
"
'
"

 6 
0




@


 "

5




 


"

9
5



 



@
0












'


'?
 
?

@
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the contraband recovered from the petitioner falls under the category of non-commercial quantity; the petitioner is stated to be involved in 12 more cases out of which two FIRs are under the NDPS Act, and in one of the cases under the NDPS Act, the petitioner has undergone the sentence whereas in another case, he is on bail; the present SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
    -4-




petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 01 year; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability is to be decided by trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by the parties, and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case

"



" 





7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 8. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case. (SUBHAS MEHLA)
JUDGE
16.04.2026
Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO SONIA PURI 2026.04.20 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document