Satnam Singh Alias Bhola Alias Pohla v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211/2 Date of decision : 24.04.2026 Satnam Singh @ Bhola @ Pohla ... PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No.46 dated 20.02.2026, under Sections 15(b), 27(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with coaccused Gurmanjot Singh, was travelling in a car when they were apprehended by the police on the basis of suspicion. Upon checking, a white plastic gunny bag lying on the back seat of car was found, from which 05 kgs. of poppy husk (non-commercial quantity) was allegedly recovered. Upon personal search of both of them, an amount of Rs.20,500/- was recovered, which is alleged to be drug money.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is non-

-2compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that whether the alleged recovery was effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner is yet to be established during the course of trial. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 months. Although the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act but he is on bail in that case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as challan is yet to be presented.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 months and is not involved in any other case. He, upon instructions, submits that challan is yet to be presented.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 months, the alleged recovery of contraband is of non-commercial quantity and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as challan is yet to be presented, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

-38.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) April 24, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No