Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:22.12.2025 Sandeep Singh @ Sonu ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The present petition has filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.15 dated 26.02.2024, registered under Sections 21-C, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2.

As per the allegations, on 26.02.2024, accused Sarabjit Singh @ Billa, Rulda Khan and the present petitioner were apprehended while they were going in a car and on conducting search, 37 strips of Leegesik containing total 185 injections and 185 bottles of Avil were recovered from their conscious possession. They were formally arrested. Their dope test was conducted and was found to be positive. Accused Sarabjit Singh suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which co-accused were nominated. Investigation now stands concluded and the petitioner along with co-accused

-2is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences. 3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, thus, urged that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that recovery of commercial quantity of intoxicating injections and syrup had been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and co-accused. The trial is going at a proper pace as 09 out of 18 witnesses have been examined and 05 have been given up. There is not going to be any inordinate delay in conclusion of the same. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is, thus, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5.

I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6.

The petitioner along with co-accused was found in possession commercial quantity of injections and vials of Avil as on 26.02.2024. The trial is going on at a proper pace and only few witnesses remain to be examined. The twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are obviously attracted in this case. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. 7.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

-38.

It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case.

9.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 22.12.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No