CRM-M/38535/2026 of KARAMJIT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 22.07.2026

KARAMJIT SINGH

....Petitioner

V/s

STATE OF PUNJAB

.…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.53 dated 28.05.2025 registered under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act added subsequently) at Police Station Shambhu, District Patiala.

2. Custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record.

3. On 28.05.2025 one Sudarshan was apprehended and 834 strips containing 60 tablets each (totalling 50,040 tablets) of Lomotil were recovered from him. The total weight, therefore, came to 3052.44 grams of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP, commercial quantity being above 50 grams. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by the main accused Sudarshan and was accordingly arrested on 16.01.2026. MANI KUMAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that no recovery was made from him even after his arrest and there is no evidence linking him with the main accused Sudarshan. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; final report stands submitted on 10.07.2026; charges are yet to be framed, trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the allegations are serious. He further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may try to influence and threaten the witnesses and may even abscond.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 6 months. No recovery has been made from him. He has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement of the main accused Sudarshan from whom a commercial quantity of 3052.44 grams of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP recovered who is already in custody. Except for the disclosure statement, there is no evidence linking the petitioner with the main accused. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Investigation has been concluded; final report has been submitted; though charges have not been framed. It is therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his MANI KUMAR

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 22, 2026 Mani Kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MANI KUMAR