Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-62651-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215
CRM-M-62651-2026
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
GURPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, Advocate and
Mr. R.S. Jagal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the third petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case having FIR No.116 dated
20.11.2024 registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985
(added later on 61 and 85 of NDPS) at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad,
District Fazilka.
2. Upon notice, the State counsel has appeared and has opposed
the bail. Both the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has
been perused.
3. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner and co-accused Manjeet
Singh were apprehended by the police party on 20.11.2024 while the police
party was on patrolling duty. On search, 500 grams of heroin was recovered
from co-accused namely Manjeet Singh. On interrogation, petitioner
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62651-2026 -2-
disclosed that he has concealed some heroin near a canal and in pursuance
thereof, he got recovered 235 grams of heroin, which was also taken into
possession. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He is in custody since 20.11.2024. Co-accused
namely Manjeet Singh from whom 500 grams of heroin was recovered has
been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
28.01.2026 in CRM-M-3354-2026 and petitioner too is thus entitled to be
released on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel next contended that
out of total 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not a single witness has
been examined till date. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude
and no useful purpose will be served by detaining him in custody anymore
and he may be released on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed in CRM-M-21794 of 2023
– Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 05.05.2023, CRR-1785 of
2018 (O&M)- Vicky Kaur v. State of Punjab , decided on 13.08.2018,
CRM-M-14029 of 2018 Kamlesh v. State of Punjab , decided on 06.05.2015,
CRM-M-17321 of 2025 Jassu Ram @ Jasuram v. State of Punjab , decided
on 04.04.2025 and a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. (s).12788/2023 – Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v.
The State of West Bengal, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025 - Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Anr. decided on 14.11.2025 and (2022) 10 SCC 52, Satender Kumar Antil
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62651-2026 -3-
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 11.07.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and
argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime as he was found
involved in the recovery of commercial quantity of heroin and in view of rigors
contained in statutory provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to
the benefit of bail.
6. As per prosecution case, petitioner was found involved in the
recovery of 235 grams of heroin whereas 500 grams of heroin was recovered
from his co-accused Manjeet Singh. He is in custody since 20.11.2024 and as
such, trial has been delayed and there is no likelihood of the same being
concluded soon . Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, Rabi
Prakash v. State of Odisha has held that prolonged incarceration, generally
militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. To
the same effect is the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 172, Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023
AIR(SC) 1648, Mohammad Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
in which Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting regular bail to an accused,
from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, has held that
grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered
by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also held
so in judgment reported as Law Finder Doc Id #2770222 Garpawandeep
Singh alias Bihari v. State of Punjab decided vide judgment dated 27.08.2025
passed in CRM-M-19408 of 2025 wherein 260 grams of heroin was allegedly
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62651-2026 -4-
recovered. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.12788/2023 titled Nandalal Mondal alias Abhay Mondal v. The State of
West Bengal , vide judgment dated 03.01.2024 while taking into consideration
the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner/under- trial, the fact
that he does not have any criminal antecedents and also keeping in view the
prolonged incarceration, ordered release of the petitioner on bail who was
found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate - a cough syrup which
falls within the commercial quantity. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.4883/2025 titled Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Anr. (Supra) , has held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in
possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance was entitled for bail in
view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. In Satender Kumar
Antil’s case (supra) , prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the
attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct
approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37
of NDPS Act. The Court expressed the opinion that Section 436A of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on
bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) would apply.
7. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the present case and also the ratio of law laid down in afore-mentioned case
laws, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the
petitioner in custody and resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and
surety bond to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, on usual terms and conditions. However, in addition to the terms
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62651-2026 -5-
and conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall not misuse the concession of bail granted to
him.
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary during the trial.
(iii) Petitioner shall regularly appear before the trial Court and he
will not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.
(iv) Petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(v) Petitioner shall not in any manner delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions or the
conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court or upon any other sufficient
cause, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.
11.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document