Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Nishan Singh Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2026
CRM-M--68635-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-68635-2025 (O&M)
Satnam Singh @ Nishan Singh @ Shana
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: 27.01.2026
Date of Uploading : 27.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya ya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.59 No.59 dated 13.04.2025 13.04.2025,, registered for the offences punishable under Sections Section 21, 22, 27 27-A A and 29 of the NDPS Act, Act Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 111 (2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 21-B, 21 22-C C of NDPS Act (added later on) at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.
2. As per the prosecution version, on receipt of a specific and credible secret information, ASI Balwinder Singh along with the police party held barricading at bridge drain, Kot Ise Khan. The petitioner with co-
co accused Sukhwinder Singh was allegedly apprehen apprehended ded while coming on foot. Upon seeing the police party, both the accused persons allegedly threw polythene packets taken out from their pockets. During the course of search and apprehension, recovery of 258 grams of heroin was effected from co-
co 1 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:41 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 2 accused Sukhwinder Sukhwinder Singh whereas 195 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the polythene bag allegedly thrown by the petitioner petitioner. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of ruqa sent by the Station House Officer and further investigation was conducted in accordanc accordance with law. The petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2025 and has remained in custody since then. After completion of investigation, the final report already stands presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the disclosure statement of co co-accused accused which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the FIR in question has been registered on the basis of alleged secret information and hence the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 of the NDPS have not been complied. Furthermore, there is clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the petitioner was neither informed of his legal right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer nor was any such officer called called at the spot. Moreover, no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery and the FIR itself appears to be fabricated. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrar arbitrary y and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, and 2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 3 thus, the prosecution prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 13.04.2025 and the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose particularly when the alleged recovery of contraband is not recovered from the conscious possession posse of the petitioner. On the strength of aforesaid submission , the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. submissions,
4. Per contra, learned earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature.
nature According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity of contraband.
contraband. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is not based merely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused co accused but is duly supported by recovery effected during the course of investigation and other incriminating material collected ected by the investigating agency. Furthermore, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected from the polythene bag thrown by him thereby clearly establishing his conscious possession of the contraband. Furthermore, ermore, tthe he petitioner is involved in multiple criminal cases including NDPS cases and the he rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely apply. According to learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner itself indicates consciousness of guilt and the rec recovery overy effected is not accidental or planted as alleged. Furthermore, the sequence 3 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 4 of events collectively establishes prima facie material indicating active participation of the petitioner. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate certificat dated 24.01.2026 in Court today,, which is taken on record. As per the said custody, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 09 months and 3 days. In view of the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel has prayed for the dismissal of the iinstant petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.
6. Before delving further into the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer herein to the following case case-law(s) germane to the matter in issue:
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9792/2025, No.9792/2025 has held as under:
"8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty twenty-first first century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and addiction have become pervasive. The United Nations Office on Drugs rugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its 2025 World Drug Report that "As at 2023, some 316 million people worldwide had used drugs in the past year, representing an increase over the past decade that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher prevalence of drug use."
9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects individuals, families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of health including physical, social, political, politic cultural foundations, and mental well well-being.
being. (See: "Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S, Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The lingering menace of drug abuse among the Indian youth - it's time for action. Indian J Community Med 2025;50:S9 2025;50:S9-12,12, published on 17th April, 2025")
10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or sacrificing its most valuable resource i.e. its young people. The extent of menace of drug abuse has also been highhighlighted lighted by this Court in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5 SCC 155 wherein this Court has observed as under:
4 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 5 "9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country with the Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India.
As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders ("SUD ("SUD")") and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational Page 75 of 84 imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drug drugss which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India's younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family."
11. In the present case, this Court finds th that at though the Respondent-accused accused was in custody for one year four months and charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the commercial quantity but the Respondent Respondent-accused allegedly got ot the cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be sai said d that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time."
ii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768 of 2025,, has held as under:
"15. At this stage, age, two features stand out. The High Court's conclusion that there is no material to show that the applicant had any knowledge of the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived at without discussion of the statements of the respondent and circumstances relied elied upon by the prosecution, including the assertion that the respondent had placed the orders for import, controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the overseas supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The High Court has not examined mined whether those circumstances, taken at face value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie 5 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 6 indicate conscious control or involvement sufficient to attract the presumption of culpable mental state indicated under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court includes the Union's assertion that the respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure izure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this nature, ture, if returned without addressing the prosecution's assertions of operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance."
iii) This Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M-33729 33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161)) = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H4537;
P&H4537 after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Thamisharasi & Ors, 1995(4) 1995(4) SCC 190, Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 (3) SCC 549, Union of India vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 186, Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw LiveLaw (SC) 613, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat, 1988(1) RCR(Criminal) 540, Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of o Maharashtra & Anr. 2005(5) SCC 294, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vs. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 252, 6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 7 Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another, 1987(4) SCC 497, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Boa Board rd vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., and another, 1987(1) SCC 532, Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others, 2003(4) SCC 488, Commissioner of Income-tax, Income tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, 1958 SCC Online SC 30, Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Gurudasmal and others 1970(1) SCC 633, Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, 1989(3) SCC 709 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, 2003(3) SCC 57;
57; has held, thus:
"14. As a sequitur to aboveabove-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-AA thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially ally required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close fam family ily relative etc.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail bail-applicant applicant has suffered long under-trial trial cu custody, stody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail bail-applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other appli applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail bail-plea plea to be successful.
IV. For consideration by bail CouCourtrt of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. " "there there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, dairy, exclusively fo forr the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.
7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 8
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant applicant-accused, accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court Court while adjudicating such bail plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':
(i) The word 'likely'' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re re-offending offending by the bail-applicant, applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.
(iii) The bail-Court Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused accused a condition tthat hat he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he ha hass not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances mstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 ((ibid)) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing hing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."
7. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. While considering a ba bail application, the Court ourt must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 9 the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court ourt must also assess the likelihood kelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Additionally, the character, antecedents, ffinancial inancial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard egard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Tripathi,, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under:
14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application applicati for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding nding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179
179).
). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper per with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tam tamper per with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant rant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and 9 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 10 not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of suchh reasons would suffer from non non-application application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension ofthreat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) :
2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338."
This Court also in specific terms held that :
"the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sin sinee qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period eriod of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration w would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."
In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 22005(1) 005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court observed :
"The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite
10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 11 stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation."
8. Indubitably, the petitioner and the co co-accused accused were found together at the same place and time. At the outset, it is to be noted that the offence alleged against the petitioner pertains to recovery of 195 intoxicating tablets which were later found to be th that at of Etizolam and each tablet having average weight of 141 mgs. The total weight is stated to be 27.49 grams which falls under the commercial quantity and, therefore, therefore attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. At the stage of consideration of regular regular bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of evidence. It is well settled that Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Act mandates that the regular bail can be granted only if the he Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believin believing g that the accused is not guilty and hee is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. At this stage, this Court is not expected to appreciate the evidence in detail. The contentions regarding conscious possession and weighing of contraband are matters of trial and can only be ratiocinated upon after evidence is led. The plea regarding non-compliance non compliance of mandatory provisions is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of bail.
The petitioner is also stated to be involved in other NDPS cases as well, well which prima facie reflects his criminal antecedent and weighed heavy against the petitioner.
petitioner Merely because the investigation is complete or that the trial may take time, cannot be a ground for regular bail in cases under Section 37 NDPS Act. The argument that Section 27 27-A of the NDPS Act 11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 12 has been wrongly invoked cannot be accepted at this stage. The material collected by the investigating agency, including the secret information and the recovery, prima facie suggests ts that the petitioner was involved of guilty of offence under the NDPS Act. In view of the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is required to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitio petitioner ner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the material available on record, this Court is unable to record such satisfaction.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court must primarily see whether there exists reasonable material connecting the accused to the offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations as also the manner of recovery disentitled the petitioner titioner to the discretionary relief of regular bail. Furthermore, no accentuating circumstances have been made which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations and the evidence placed on record.
The Court cannot accept the plea of the petitioner of false implication merely based on assertions without evidence. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.04.2025 but custody, by itself, is not a groun ground d for bail when the allegations are serious and investigation is still in progress.
Releasing the petitioner at this stage may affect the investigation especially when the role of the co-accused co accused and any possible connection between the two is still being examined.
e 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 ::: CRM-M--68635-2025 13
10. In view of the seriousness of the allegations coupled with the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner & the statutory bar under the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to to the concession of regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.
11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
(i) The present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Any observations made and/or subm submissions issions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE January 27, 2026 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 13 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 03:33:42 :::