Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS Case After FSL Report Finds Alleged Heroin Sample Negative; Applies Parity With Co-Accused

Case Name: Harjinder Singh alias Ajay v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-50860-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution would first be required to establish that the recovered substance fell within the ambit of the Act, particularly when the Forensic Science Laboratory report had returned a negative result for the alleged heroin sample. The Court also took note of parity, as similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in an FIR registered by the Special Task Force, Amritsar, alleging recovery of 263 grams of heroin and drug money. During the course of investigation, several other accused were nominated on the basis of disclosure statements, leading to multiple recoveries of alleged drug proceeds and contraband. In total, seventeen accused were arraigned in the case.

The Court noted that, as per the status report filed by the State, the first sample of the alleged contraband weighing 263 grams was reported negative by the FSL. Though the prosecution had moved an application seeking retesting of the sample, the same was still pending consideration. The investigation against the petitioner stood completed and the final report had already been filed, while the trial had yet to commence.

The Court further observed that several co-accused, from whom recoveries of cash, vehicles, or other material were effected, had already been granted regular bail by the High Court. One of the accused had also succeeded in having proceedings quashed on account of illegal arrest. The State was unable to controvert these factual aspects or distinguish the petitioner’s case from that of the co-accused released on bail.

Decision: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds. The Court clarified that the petitioner shall not influence prosecution witnesses and that the trial court shall decide the case independently on the basis of evidence. It was further observed that any future involvement of the petitioner in similar activities would render the bail liable to cancellation.