CRM-M/21175/2026 of MANDEEP SINGH @ TOOT Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 16 July 2026

1. This is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No. 33 dated 02.02.2025, registered under Sections 21-C, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Special Task Force (STF), Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF), SAS Nagar, Mohali, District STF Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2025, acting on secret information, the police intercepted a Swift car bearing registration No. PB11-AV-4033, which was being driven by the petitioner, Mandeep Singh. The petitioner was accompanied by co-accused Harjobanpreet Singh @ Joban. Upon search of the vehicle, two packets containing heroin weighing 543 grams and 527 grams, respectively, were recovered. Thus, a total of 1.070 kilograms of heroin, constituting commercial quantity, was allegedly RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and his co-accused. Consequently, FIR No. 33 dated 02.02.2025 was registered under Sections 21-C, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle from which the alleged recovery has been effected. As per the recovery memo, the alleged contraband was recovered from the dashboard of the said vehicle. He further submits that the recovery memo bears the signatures of both the petitioner and the co-accused, Harjobanpreet Singh, thereby indicating a joint recovery. However, during the course of investigation, co-accused Harjobanpreet Singh was found to be innocent. Learned counsel contends that if the recovery was indeed a joint recovery from both the petitioner and the co- accused, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to ascertain the ownership of the vehicle, particularly when the alleged recovery was effected from the dashboard.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 10 days and is involved in one more case.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 05 months and 10 days coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. 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 bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 16.07.2026

JUDGE renu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh