Lakhwinder Singh Alias Lakhi v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:14.05.2026 Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:
Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.0349, dated 22.11.2025, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla.
2.
As per the allegations, on 22.11.2025, the petitioner was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and recovery of 260 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession. The contraband as well as motorbike were taken into possession by the police. He was formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. 3.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
-2been falsely implicated in this case infact previously he had filed a petition bearing CRWP-2441-2025 before this Court seeking protection of life and liberty of his family as well as himself from the police officials. The said petition had been disposed of on 11.03.2025 by giving direction to the police authorities to decide his representation. He had also submitted an application before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission against a police official, namely, HC Gurtej Singh posted at PS Dhuri regarding illegal detention of his wife and her false implication in a case under the provisions of the NDPS Act. He had been kept in illegal custody in this case and a false case of chance recovery of contraband had been foisted upon him.
Feeling offended due to the fact that he had been raising grievances before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission and before this Court, the petitioner as well as his wife have been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. Now he is in custody since 22.11.2025. Investigation now stands completed. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4.
Notice of motion.
5.
Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. While placing on record custody certificate of the petitioner, it is submitted by him that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is involved in 03 more cases under the NDPS Act and the trial is at its nascent stage. There are chances of the petitioner's absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
-36.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.
The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband on 22.11.2025. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The allegations against him are serious in nature. There is nothing on record to suggest that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity of contraband recovered from him, the seriousness of the allegations as levelled against him and the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8.
Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 14.05.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No