CRM-M- IN 246/2 Saurabh Ch v. State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. registered NDPS Act Ludhiana, h of bail. 2. noticed her team head (totaling 50 salt Loraz 02/2027) fr Jagdish Sin person acc -42402-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA abh Chauhan of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate fo Mr. Gautam Thapar, DAG, Pu **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, an accused in cas tered against him for commission o S Act and Section 111 of BNS, a iana, has filed the present petition und Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- At 11.45 AM on 15.6.2025 ba eaded by ASI Hardam Singh, sei g 50 tablets) of intoxicant (bearing orazepam bearing batch number 7) from a transparent packet thrown h Singh, resident of Ward No.1, Pay accompanying Saurabh Chauhan 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-42402-2025 Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. cate for the petitioner. G, Punjab. in case FIR No. 41 dated 15.06.202 sion of offences under Section 22 o NS, at Police Station Payal, Distri on under Section 483 of BNSS for gra ging from the documents on record b 5 based on a chance recovery, Polic , seized 5 strips of 10 tablets eac ring brand name LOZEX MD 2, wi ber ABPL-24046 and expiry da rown by one Saurabh Chauhan, son Payal (present petitioner). The oth han introduced himself as Amandee .2026 6.2025, n 22 of District or grant cord be Police each , with date son of other ndeep GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Singh @ T per status r case vide F commission 111 of BNS interrogati these intox used to pur nominated three strips tablets (be batch No. A weight of t Chauhan w Judge, Spe dismissed t been filed. 3. been falsely Act were n further the since 15.6. bag thrown Lozex MD2 -42402-2025 -2 @ Toni. None could, however, prod tus report, statutory formalities wer ide FIR No. 041 dated 15.06.2025, ssion of offences under Sections 22, BNS, at Police Station Payal, Distri gation, both Amandeep Singh and ntoxicant tablets had to be sold to purchase the contraband from one ated as accused and was arrested on trips of intoxicating tablets each c (bearing brand name LOZEX MD o. ABPL-24046 and expiry date 02/ As per the FSL report appen ht of the contraband recovered from t han was 6.68 grams of Lorazepam wh Petitioner moved an applicatio e, Special Court, Ludhiana, who in issed the said application. Aggrieved filed. Learned counsel for the petit falsely implicated in the present case. were not complied with in letter and er the submission of learned counsel t 15.6.2025. The contraband alleged thrown by Saurabh Chauhan (petition x MD2 with salt Lorazepam, which is 2- produce any license or permit etc. were completed at the site. A form 025, was registered against them fo s 22, 27, 29 of NDPS Act and Sectio istrict Ludhiana. During the course and Saurabh Chauhan disclosed th d to their customers, as also that h one Iqbal Singh @ Balli who was als d on 16.6.2025. From his possessio ch containing 10 tablets, totaling 3 MD 2, with salt Lorazepam bearin e 02/2027) were recovered. appended with status report, the tot from the polythene thrown by Saurab am which falls is a ‘small’ quantity. lication for grant of bail before learne ho in terms of order dated 24.7.202 rieved of which, the present petition ha e petitioner submits that petitioner ha t case. Statutory requirements of NDP er and spirit by the Police team. I nsel that petitioner has been in custod llegedly recovered from the polythen etitioner) weighs about 6.68 grams o is a ‘small’ quantity. tc. As formal m for ection rse of d that hat he s also ssion, ing 30 earing he total Saurabh learned .7.2025, tion has ner has f NDPS t is custody lythene rams of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- completion incarceratio be violativ including “Bail is allowing th 4. submission petitioner nature and likelihood Court and State Coun the rise and petition has 5. documents 6. have alread advanced further on since 15.06 already bee view is tak the facts tha -42402-2025 -3 Continuing further, learned co letion of trial in the near future is qu ceration would not serve any useful pu lative of his rights under Article right to speedy trial but would a general rule and incarceratio the petition has been made. Per contra, learned State issions raised by learned counsel ioner is a habitual offender. He is and in case the concession of bail ihood of him fleeing from the process and committing same offence yet ag Counsel further contends that drug m and, therefore, needs to be dealt wi ion has been made. Heard learned counsel for ments on record. Factual aspects of the case lea eady been noticed in para 2 of the by learned counsel for the pet on the merits of the case, the fact 15.06.2025, investigations qua him dy been filed, for even the charges h is taken in favour of petitioner. Thus acts that have been brought on record, 3- ned counsel submits that likelihood o is quite remote.. Thus, his (P) furth eful purpose as the same would not on rticle 21 of the Constitution of Indi would also be against the principle ration is an exception.” Prayer State counsel while opposing unsel for the petitioner, submits th is involved in another case of lik bail is granted to him, there is ever rocess of justice by not appearing in again cannot be ruled out. Learne rug menace in the State of Punjab is o ealt with sternly. Prayer for dismissal o for the parties and perused leading to the registration of the FI the order. In view of the submission petitioner, but without commentin that petitioner has been in custod a him are complete, for challan ha rges have not yet been framed, lenie . Thus, when appreciated in the light o ecord, the Court is of the opinion that n hood of ) further only India, ciple of for the that like every the Learned ab is on issal of the FIR issions menting custody llan has , lenient light of that no GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- useful purp same, witho not only be India, inclu of “Bail is Hon’ble Su 2018(2) RC 7. to his furn Court/Duty following c -42402-2025 -4 l purpose would be served by furthe , without the prospect of trial being co nly be violative of his rights under , including right to speedy trial but w il is a general rule and incarcera ble Supreme Court in Dataram v. Sta ) RCR (Criminal) 131. Resultantly, petitioner is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not the trial. (ii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the petitioner seeks to chang 4- further detention of petitioner, as th ing concluded in the near future, wou nder Article 21 of the Constitution o but would also be against the princip ceration is an exception” as held b . State of Uttar Pradesh and anothe s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri The petitioner shall abide by th not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th l not leave the country without prio urt. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam , as the , would ution of rinciple held by other, subject ed trial by the during e the prior to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. obile ge the eason, same GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. that in case at liberty t order. 9. herein are l construed a independen 12.01.2026 gbs -42402-2025 -5 shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. Accordingly, the present petiti in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 5- prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b ail as granted to the petitioner by th t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Trial n each der of other g the de clear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.17 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document