[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M No.18259 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
243
*****
CRM-M No.18259 of 2026
Date of decision : 23.4.2026
Date of uploading : 24.4.2026
Rohit .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Lokesh Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, 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 bearing FIR No.257 dated
14.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22/61/85
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
'NDPS Act') (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station
Model Town, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving
alleged recovery of 8 boxes of intoxicant capsules of dicyclomine
hydrochloride, tramadol hydrochloride and acetaminophen proxyco spas
(each box contained 10 strips and each strip contained 24 capsules,
totalling 1920 intoxicant capsules).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 14.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the
FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that
the chemical examiner report has not yet been received and hence the
petitioner may be granted concession of interim regular bail in terms of
judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Inderjeet
Singh @ Laddi and others Vs. State of Punjab , 2014 SCC Online P&H
24990, relevant whereof, reads as under:-
"5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions found
that the question whether such substances/drugs are covered under the
NDPS Act or not, or can be dealt with only under the D&C Act has been
arising frequently in many cases. The consequences would be completely
different if the substances were held to be within the purview of the D&C
Act instead of the NDPS Act. The matter was, therefore, referred to a
larger bench. Meanwhile, the petitioner was ordered to be released on
interim bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana."
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
53....... Indeed the delay in testing the sample does result in prejudice to
an alleged offender as till the results are available there can be no definite
certainty with regard to the contraband in respect of which there has been
a contravention or that has been recovered. In such cases to await the
outcome of the final FSL report where there is likely to be delayed, the
accused may be released on interim bail. In Sukhwant Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 539, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as follows:
....... following the decision of this Court in Kamlendra Pratap
Singh v. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 we reiterate that a
court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent
power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail
application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life
and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular
bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application
after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which
has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the
meantime the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant
is released on bail thereafter society. The reputation of a
person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under
Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14. Hence, we are of the opinion
that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the
court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final
disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the
discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not
but the power is certainly there.
54. Therefore, the presiding officer of a Special Court dealing with NDPS
cases wherever the need is felt and where the matter is being
unnecessarily delayed may grant interim bail till the receipt of the FSL
report and thereafter considered the case after the receipt of the report."
4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply today in Court. The
same is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said
reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing
that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Learned State counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question
pertains to recovery of 8 boxes of intoxicant capsules of dicyclomine
hydrochloride, tramadol hydrochloride and acetaminophen proxyco spas
(each box contained 10 strips and each strip contained 24 capsules,
totaling 1920 intoxicant capsules) and, therefore, the bar under Section 37
ASHWANI KUMAR of the NDPS, 1985 is attracted. Furthermore, expressing concerns about
the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from the trial proceedings, learned
State counsel submits that petitioner ought not be granted the concession
of regular bail. He has, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition in
hand. He also seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.4.2026
in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2025 and the matter is still
under investigation. It is not in dispute that the chemical examiner report
has not yet been received. A perusal of the dicta of the Division Bench
judgment passed in Inderjeet Singh Laddi (supra), when read in the
context of the factual matrix of the present case, indubitably reflects that
the petitioner ought to be granted concession of regular bail till the receipt
of the chemical examiner report before the concerned Court.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 22.4.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 5 months and 4 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner
is stated to be involved in 2 more 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.
7. In view of the factual milieu of the case in hand, the petition is
allowed and the petitioner is granted regular bail till the presentation of
chemical examiner report before the concerned Court. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, accordingly, on his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to apply for
regular bail afresh before the concerned trial Court after presentation of
chemical examiner report and his having surrendered before the
concerned Court. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed
by the concerned trial Court/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 cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
23.4.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
