CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 11 INN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 214 CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) Date of decision : 14.07.20226 Nand Kishhore ..... Petitiooner VERSUUS Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) ..... Responddent [ CORAMM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocatte with Mr. Arnav Ghai and Mr. Prasshant Kharb Budhera, Advocatess for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Puublic Prosecutor with Ms. Geetika Sharma, Ms. Himmanshi Gautam and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocatess for the respondent. ***** SURYA PPARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is tthe fourth petition, filed by the petitionerr under Section 483 of ‘the Bhharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to aa prosecution bearing NCB Criime No.14/2015 dated 05.05.2015, under Seections 8, 18, 29, 27A and 300 of Narcotic DDrugs and Psychotropic Substannces Act, hereinafter being referrred to as ‘NDDPS Act’. The abovementionedd prosecution has been initiated by NCB Chaandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigaarh, and registered as NDPS-415-2022 dateed 01.11.2022 titled as ‘NCB V/ss Nand Kishore’. 2. Briefly stating the facts emmerging from record are that the abovemenntioned case came into beingg at the instance of officials of Narcotics Control Bureau, hereinafter bbeing referred to as ‘complainaant’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 22

only. Acccording to the facts set-out by thhe prosecution, the officials of NCBN received a secret information with regarrd to delivery of large quantityy of opium thrrough various persons, to ‘Sukhbbir Singh @Sukha’, ‘Lakhbir Sinngh @Lakha’ and ‘Jasghir Singh’. 3. It is the case of the prossecution that the abovementionned informatioon was received on 04.05.2015 and on 05.05.2015, the officialss of NCB condducted a joint operation with ‘Sppecial Task Force’ (STF) Hisar anda local poliice and in the abovementioned rraids, 36.15 kg opium and Rs.1 9.4 lacs curreency notes (drug money) were recovered from the possessionn of accused ‘SSukhbir Singh @Sukha’ and ‘Laakhbir Singh @Lakha’. 4. According to prosecution, oonce the abovementioned recovvery took plac e, investigation of the present ccase was taken up, and during the course of investigation, when accusedd ‘Sukhbir Singh @Sukha’ anda ‘Lakhbir Singh @Lakha’ were interrogaated, they suffered their respecttive disclosuree statements, wherein they no minated the present petitionerr as supplier oof the abovementioned contrabannd. 5. Status report has already beeen filed by learned State Counnsel. Custody ccertificate of the petitioner has bbeen filed today. They be takenn on record. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerr that the petitioner in the presennt case has been implicated, merrely on the baasis of disclosure statement sufffered by his co-accused, and thatt GAURAV THAKUR

2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 33 pursuant tto abovementioned disclosure st atement, nothing incriminating wasw recoveredd from the possession of petitionner. It has also been contendedd by learned S enior Counsel for the petitioner that although this is fourth petittion for bail filed by the petitioner, but thhe same is maintainable and the petitionerr is entitled to the benefit of baiil, as from the date of dismissall of last petiti on for bail, on 13.08.2025, therre is no significant progress in the trial. As per learned Senior Counseel for the petitioner, prolongged incarcerattion and delay in trial renders thee petitioner to be eligible for baill. 8. The thrust of arguments o f learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerr has been upon the period off long incarceration to which the petitionerr has undergone. It has been conntended by learned Senior Counnsel for the peetitioner that the petitioner has aalready suffered incarceration foor a period of more than three years and eleveen months. While alleging that dued to delay i n trial and long period of incarcceration, the right of speedy triall of the petitiooner is being denied, the learnedd Senior Counsel for the petitiooner has soughht for the benefit of bail for the p etitioner.

9. The learned Special Publiic Prosecutor for the NCB has controverrted the abovementioned argumments. It has been pointedly arguued by learnedd Special Public Prosecutor for tthe NCB that present case is a caase, wherein tthere were several accused and two trials with regard to other co-accused hhave already been concluded annd two co-accused of the petitiooner have beenn convicted (whereas remaining hhave been acquitted). GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 44 10. The learned Special Public PProsecutor for the NCB has furtther contendedd that the petitioner is a personn, who has dubious record, as he abscondedd for a long period and was decclared a proclaimed offender. WithW regard to above, it has been contended byy learned Special Public Prosecuutor for the NCCB that the petitioner was declarred proclaimed offender in the yeary 2013 and he was re-arrested in the year 22022. According to learned Speccial Public Proosecutor for the NCB, the delay in trial in the present case was dued to non-apppearance of the petitioner for a l ong period.

11. In addition to above, the leaarned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB has also contended that otherwiise also, this is fourth petition fiiled by the ppetitioner and from the date oof dismissal of third petition, no significannt change in attending circumstaances has taken place. Accordingg to learned Sppecial Public Prosecutor for the NCB, otherwise also in the pressent case, the recovery of huge quantity of coontraband, which comes within the ambit of ccommercial quantity, i.e. 36.1500 kg of opium, is involved, and thatt without saatisfying the twin conditions, ennshrined under Section-37 of NDDPS Act, the ppetitioner cannot be accorded tthe benefit of bail. As per learnned Special P ublic Prosecutor for the NCB, tthe petitioner has failed to commply with any oof the twin conditions. 12. The record has been perused carefully. 13. A perusal of record shows thhat in the present case, following are the relevaant factors which are required too be taken into consideration foor a decision:-- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 55 i. that the past of the peetitioner in itself speaks in volummes about his conduct, aas he absconded for a period of approximately nine yeears and was declared a proclaimmed offender;

ii. that in the present ccase, the recovery of contrabaand comes within the ammbit of ‘commercial quantity’, anda therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions prescribed under Sectiion-37 of NDPS Act, the petitiooner can’t claim the benefitt of bail. There is nothing on reccord to show that the petitiooner satisfies the twin conditionss; iii. that from the date oof dismissal of third petition on 13.08.2025, no such cchange in attending circumstannces has taken place, whichh could have rendered the petitiooner eligible for bail. 14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovemenntioned factors, but without commmenting anything on the meritss of the case, it is hereby held that the presennt petition, which is fourth petittion for bail, ffiled by the petitioner, is devoi d of merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, th e same is hereby dismissed, accoordingly. 15. However, it is clarified thatt the abovementioned observations shall not hhave any bearing upon the meritss of the case. 16. Pending miscellaneous appplication(s), if any, also standd(s) disposed oof, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasonedd Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 11 INN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 214 CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) Date of decision : 14.07.20226 Nand Kishhore ..... Petitiooner VERSUUS Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) ..... Responddent [ CORAMM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocatte with Mr. Arnav Ghai and Mr. Prasshant Kharb Budhera, Advocatess for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Puublic Prosecutor with Ms. Geetika Sharma, Ms. Himmanshi Gautam and Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advocatess for the respondent. ***** SURYA PPARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is tthe fourth petition, filed by the petitionerr under Section 483 of ‘the Bhharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to aa prosecution bearing NCB Criime No.14/2015 dated 05.05.2015, under Seections 8, 18, 29, 27A and 300 of Narcotic DDrugs and Psychotropic Substannces Act, hereinafter being referrred to as ‘NDDPS Act’. The abovementionedd prosecution has been initiated by NCB Chaandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigaarh, and registered as NDPS-415-2022 dateed 01.11.2022 titled as ‘NCB V/ss Nand Kishore’. 2. Briefly stating the facts emmerging from record are that the abovemenntioned case came into beingg at the instance of officials of Narcotics Control Bureau, hereinafter bbeing referred to as ‘complainaant’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 22

only. Acccording to the facts set-out by thhe prosecution, the officials of NCBN received a secret information with regarrd to delivery of large quantityy of opium thrrough various persons, to ‘Sukhbbir Singh @Sukha’, ‘Lakhbir Sinngh @Lakha’ and ‘Jasghir Singh’. 3. It is the case of the prossecution that the abovementionned informatioon was received on 04.05.2015 and on 05.05.2015, the officialss of NCB condducted a joint operation with ‘Sppecial Task Force’ (STF) Hisar anda local poliice and in the abovementioned rraids, 36.15 kg opium and Rs.1 9.4 lacs curreency notes (drug money) were recovered from the possessionn of accused ‘SSukhbir Singh @Sukha’ and ‘Laakhbir Singh @Lakha’. 4. According to prosecution, oonce the abovementioned recovvery took plac e, investigation of the present ccase was taken up, and during the course of investigation, when accusedd ‘Sukhbir Singh @Sukha’ anda ‘Lakhbir Singh @Lakha’ were interrogaated, they suffered their respecttive disclosuree statements, wherein they no minated the present petitionerr as supplier oof the abovementioned contrabannd. 5. Status report has already beeen filed by learned State Counnsel. Custody ccertificate of the petitioner has bbeen filed today. They be takenn on record. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerr that the petitioner in the presennt case has been implicated, merrely on the baasis of disclosure statement sufffered by his co-accused, and thatt GAURAV THAKUR

2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 33 pursuant tto abovementioned disclosure st atement, nothing incriminating wasw recoveredd from the possession of petitionner. It has also been contendedd by learned S enior Counsel for the petitioner that although this is fourth petittion for bail filed by the petitioner, but thhe same is maintainable and the petitionerr is entitled to the benefit of baiil, as from the date of dismissall of last petiti on for bail, on 13.08.2025, therre is no significant progress in the trial. As per learned Senior Counseel for the petitioner, prolongged incarcerattion and delay in trial renders thee petitioner to be eligible for baill. 8. The thrust of arguments o f learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerr has been upon the period off long incarceration to which the petitionerr has undergone. It has been conntended by learned Senior Counnsel for the peetitioner that the petitioner has aalready suffered incarceration foor a period of more than three years and eleveen months. While alleging that dued to delay i n trial and long period of incarcceration, the right of speedy triall of the petitiooner is being denied, the learnedd Senior Counsel for the petitiooner has soughht for the benefit of bail for the p etitioner.

9. The learned Special Publiic Prosecutor for the NCB has controverrted the abovementioned argumments. It has been pointedly arguued by learnedd Special Public Prosecutor for tthe NCB that present case is a caase, wherein tthere were several accused and two trials with regard to other co-accused hhave already been concluded annd two co-accused of the petitiooner have beenn convicted (whereas remaining hhave been acquitted). GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 44 10. The learned Special Public PProsecutor for the NCB has furtther contendedd that the petitioner is a personn, who has dubious record, as he abscondedd for a long period and was decclared a proclaimed offender. WithW regard to above, it has been contended byy learned Special Public Prosecuutor for the NCCB that the petitioner was declarred proclaimed offender in the yeary 2013 and he was re-arrested in the year 22022. According to learned Speccial Public Proosecutor for the NCB, the delay in trial in the present case was dued to non-apppearance of the petitioner for a l ong period.

11. In addition to above, the leaarned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB has also contended that otherwiise also, this is fourth petition fiiled by the ppetitioner and from the date oof dismissal of third petition, no significannt change in attending circumstaances has taken place. Accordingg to learned Sppecial Public Prosecutor for the NCB, otherwise also in the pressent case, the recovery of huge quantity of coontraband, which comes within the ambit of ccommercial quantity, i.e. 36.1500 kg of opium, is involved, and thatt without saatisfying the twin conditions, ennshrined under Section-37 of NDDPS Act, the ppetitioner cannot be accorded tthe benefit of bail. As per learnned Special P ublic Prosecutor for the NCB, tthe petitioner has failed to commply with any oof the twin conditions. 12. The record has been perused carefully. 13. A perusal of record shows thhat in the present case, following are the relevaant factors which are required too be taken into consideration foor a decision:-- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10384-2026 (O&MM) 55 i. that the past of the peetitioner in itself speaks in volummes about his conduct, aas he absconded for a period of approximately nine yeears and was declared a proclaimmed offender;

ii. that in the present ccase, the recovery of contrabaand comes within the ammbit of ‘commercial quantity’, anda therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions prescribed under Sectiion-37 of NDPS Act, the petitiooner can’t claim the benefitt of bail. There is nothing on reccord to show that the petitiooner satisfies the twin conditionss; iii. that from the date oof dismissal of third petition on 13.08.2025, no such cchange in attending circumstannces has taken place, whichh could have rendered the petitiooner eligible for bail. 14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovemenntioned factors, but without commmenting anything on the meritss of the case, it is hereby held that the presennt petition, which is fourth petittion for bail, ffiled by the petitioner, is devoi d of merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, th e same is hereby dismissed, accoordingly. 15. However, it is clarified thatt the abovementioned observations shall not hhave any bearing upon the meritss of the case. 16. Pending miscellaneous appplication(s), if any, also standd(s) disposed oof, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasonedd Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document