Ajaypal Singh @ Ajay v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.05.2026 AJAYPAL SINGH @ AJAY ......Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. Rakshit Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.

(Through Video Conferencing).

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 226 dated 23.08.2025, registered under Section(s) 21 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Gate Hakima, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar. 2.

Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a chance recovery effected by the police party headed by ASI Manjinder Singh while the police officials were on patrolling duty near Jhabhal Road. As per the prosecution, when the police party reached near an empty plot situated on Jhabhal Road, one person, later identified as Ajaypal Singh alias Ajay son of

-2Balkar Singh, resident of village Mari Megha, Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, became perplexed on seeing the police party and attempted to throw away a polythene packet which he was carrying in his right hand/pocket. Thereupon, the police officials apprehended him along with the said polythene packet. Upon search of the polythene packet, the substance contained therein was tested and was found to be heroin. The recovered contraband, along with the polythene, was weighed and its total weight was found to be 210 grams. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the present FIR under Sections 21(B), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that an intermediate quantity of Heroin has been recovered and that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2025 and has already undergone an actual custody of nearly 09 months. He further contends that even though a charge was framed in this case on 17.01.2026, however, only two witnesses have been examined so far.

4.

Learned State Counsel does not dispute the same the aforesaid facts.

5.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and taking into consideration the recovered contraband being an intermediate quantity, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner as well as the stage of the trial, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

-36.

The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

8.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MAY 27, 2026 JUDGE Vishal Vishal Vishal Vishal Sharma Sharma Sharma Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No