Mithun Chapadh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-67425-2025 (O&M).

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026.

Mithun Chapadh ....Petitioner.

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent.

*** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ---

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Mithun Chapadh, aged 37 years, has filed this petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.118 dated 04.07.2025 under Sections 21(b) and 29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot.

2.

As per the case of the prosecution, co-accused Ajay Kumar @ Dhon and Gulshan Kumar, while were on motorcycle No.PB-35P-8760, were intercepted by the police team and thereupon 23 grams and 25 milligrams of Heroin was recovered from the pocket of Gulshan Kumar. Subsequently, on the basis of disclosure statement of arrested accused, petitioner's name was involved in the case as supplier of the narcotic contraband recovered from the named accused in the FIR.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that except from the disclosure statement, in which the petitioner has been nominated as accused,

there is no other substantive evidence creating link of the petitioner with the recovered contraband or with the other co-accused. He further contends that in the present case, petitioner is inside jail for the last 08 months and 21 days and nothing (including any narcotic contraband) has been recovered from his possession after his arrest. Petitioner is nominated as accused in the present case only for the reason that earlier he was involved in 19 other cases under NDPS Act. The petitioner, being already known to the police officials, was nominated in the present case with the sole motive to nominate him in maximum number of cases. Thus, counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 08.04.2026 and opposed the bail on the ground that petitioner is habitual offender and he is found involved in total 19 other cases, as detailed in Paragraph 9 of the status report, which is reproduced hereunder:- Sr.

No.

FIR No./Date Sections Police Station Status 232/16.07.2011 22 NDPS Act Indora, District Kangra Acquitted 149/30.07.2015 18,20,21,22 NDPS Act -doUnder Trial 301/12.12.2016 21,25,29 NDPS Act -do- -do120/19.10.2021 21 NDPS Act Damtal, District Kangra -do100/02.06.2022 -do- -do- -do70/24.07.2019 341,147,149,342,353, 332,186,225 IPC -do- -do02/15.10.2020 21 and 29 NDPS Act Division No.2, Pathankot -do178/25.11.2021 -do- -do- -do155/24.09.2021 27 and 29 NDPS Act -do- -do166/29.09.2021 21 and 29 NDPS Act -doConvicted 47/22.05.2014 41 and 44 IPC and 15,18,20,21 NDPS Act Mamun Cantt., Pathankot Acquitted 06/30.01.2020 21 and 29 NDPS Act Division No.2, Pathankot Under Trial 152/21.09.2021 -do- -doAcquitted 149/16.09.2021 -do- -do- -do177/16.09.2021 -do- -doUnder Trial

65/07.06.2017 22 NDPS Act Bhogpur (Jalandhar) Acquitted 02/15.10.2020 21 and 29 NDPS Act Division No.2, Pathankot Under Trial 22/03.03.2025 21(b), 27-A NDPS Act 111 BNS -doUnder Trial 66/07.05.2025 21,22,27A,29-61-85 NDPS Act and 111 BNS Division No.1, Pathankot Under Trial Thus, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book as well as status report along with the documents appended thereto.

6.

In all other cases, as detailed above, either there is a small quantity or non-commercial quantity. However, except for one case i.e. FIR No.166 dated 29.09.2021 under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, the petitioner has not been convicted in any other case.

Considering the above said circumstances in totality, in the present case, nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and already he is inside jail for a period of 08 months and 21 days, out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

7.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

8.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 9.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

10.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 17.04.2026 jitender Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/ No Whether Reportable :

Yes/ No