SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010093252026 BA3/25/2026 Sukhveer Singh --Applicant Versus Narcotics Control Bureau --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocates for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vikrant Bhatt, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the NCB/respondent. 3. The applicant – Sukhveer Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with N.C.B. No.III/N.C.B/D.D.N/07/2025, under Sections 8, 18, 23, 27 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S.- Regional Office Narcotic Control Bureau, Zonal Unit Dehradun, Uttarakhand, has sought his release on bail. 4. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn and 2nd bail application was dismissed on merits. 5. The other grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicant are in 2nd bail application. The only new ground additionally taken by learned counsel for the applicant is charges were framed against the applicant on 03.04.2025 and PW1 was examined only on 22.05.2026 after the prosecution had taken adjournments for the first thirteen dates. On this basis, it is submitted that applicant is in judicial custody for last more than eight months and a child is also borne of the applicant out of the wedlock, when he was in judicial custody and he has not seen the face of the child till today. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/NCB would submit that applicant also has previous criminal history; that admittedly PW1 was examined on 22.05.2026 as the prosecution witness was busy in other official duty and could not depose before the Court earlier, therefore, some time was taken in deposing the statement of PW1 and he assured that remaining prosecution would be examined at the earliest. Thus, learned counsel for the NCB vehemently opposed the present bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature, therefore, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the present third bail application is hereby rejected. (Alok Mahra J.) 23.07.2026 Ujjwal