Vikramjit Singh vs State Of Union Territory, Chandigarh

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233
CRM-M- 36019-2026
AWNEET KAUR
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH
......Respondent
CRM-M- 60489-2026
VIKRAMJIT SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH
......Respondent
Decided on : 12.11.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-36019-2026.
Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-60489-2026.
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh,
Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh, and
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate, for UT Chandigarh.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions
shall stand disposed of, as the same arise out of one common FIR.
1. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 2
petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a
criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed
hereunder:-
Sr.
No
Petition
Name of
Petitioner(s)
FIR
Date Section(s) Police
Station
District
No.
No.
1. CRM-M-
36019-
2026
Awneet
Kaur, aged
about 26
years
0004 29.03.2024 21, 29 of
ANTF
(Anti
Narcotic
Task Force)
Chandigarh
NDPS Act
2. CRM-M-
60489-
2026
Vikramjit
Singh, aged
about 28
years
0004 29.03.2024 21, 29 of
ANTF
(Anti
Narcotic
Task
Force),
Sector 11
Chandigarh
NDPS Act
and
section
201 of
IPC
[correspo
nding to
section
238 of
BNS]
2. First bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-35133-2024, filed by
petitioner Awneet Kaur, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated
24.09.2024 (Annexure P-3).
Second bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-42444-2025, filed by
petitioner Awneet Kaur, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated
11.08.2025 (Annexure P-4).
Third bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-48707-2025, filed by
petitioner Awneet Kaur, was also dismissed as withdrawn, vide order
dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-5).
3. Likewise, first bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-11733-2026, filed
by petitioner Vikramjit Singh, was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, vide a detailed order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-3).
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 3
4. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the cases may be
noticed.
As per the allegations recorded in the FIR, on 28.03.2024 at
around 11:45 PM, a secret informant gave information that the accused,
namely, Vikramjeet Singh @ Vicky (petitioner in CRM-M-60489-2026)
and a woman, namely, Awneet Kaur (petitioner in CRM-M-36019-2026),
were travelling in a Glanza car, bearing No. PB65-AB-0880 and were
involved in the supply of ‘heroin’ in Chandigarh and the Tri-city area,
and that if apprehended on that day, a huge quantity of heroin could be
recovered from them. Thereafter, at about 1:00 AM, the aforesaid car was
found parked in the parking area near the lake, where both the
aforementioned accused were apprehended by the police team. Upon
searching the car, 1.012 kg of heroin was recovered from behind the
music system installed in the said car.
Further, during the course of investigation, a disclosure
statement of the arrested accused – Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky was
recorded on 29.03.2024 while he was in custody, and on the basis thereof,
two more persons, namely Gurjot Singh and Joga Singh, were arrested in
the case. When accused Gurjot Singh was arrested, one Endeavour car
and one Audi car, along with Rs.4,50,000/- alleged to be drug money,
were recovered from his possession. Besides, two mobile phones were
also recovered.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 4
Thereafter, on 31.03.2024, accused – Lovepreet Singh was
implicated as accused in the case and while refining the allegations, it
was stated that, in fact, Gurjot Singh, who had been arrested from
Ludhiana on 29.03.2024, was the person who disclosed Lovepreet
Singh’s name, from whose possession 502 grams of heroin were
recovered from a rented Flat No.503, Wembley Society, Sector 91,
Mohali, Punjab.
During further investigation, a disclosure statement of
accused Lovepreet Singh was recorded, wherein he named another
accused i.e. Nishan Singh @ Soni as an accused, alleging him to be the
supplier of 502 grams of heroin to Lovepreet Singh. However, when
Nishan Singh @ Soni was arrested on 05.04.2024, nothing was recovered
from his possession.
5. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submit that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of
a concocted story and planted recoveries. It is contended that no
contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of either of
the petitioners.
6. It is further submitted that both the petitioners were arrested
on 29.03.2024, i.e. from the very inception of the present case, and have,
thus, already undergone actual custody of more than two years and seven
months.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 5
On the other hand, two other co-accused, namely, Nishan
Singh alias Soni and Lovepreet Singh, who have undergone a lesser
period of custody than the petitioners, have already been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court, vide common order dated
09.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-25307-2025 and CRM-M-71162-2025
(Annexure P-8).
7. It is also contended that trial is not progressing at the
requisite pace, as out of total 41 prosecution witnesses cited by the
prosecution, only two witnesses have been examined in their
examination-in-chief so far.
Learned counsel further submit that, in the absence of
conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period, keeping the petitioners
incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose,
particularly when they have already undergone a substantial period of
custody.
Therefore, learned counsel pray for grant of regular bail to
both the petitioners in the present case.
8. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned State counsel, produces the custody
certificates of both the petitioners and status report dated 11.11.2026 in
Court today, which are taken on record. Office to tag the same at
appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for
the petitioners.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 6
9. As per the custody certificates, in the present case, petitioner
– Awneet Kaur has already undergone 02 years 07 months and 12 days
period inside jail, and petitioner-Vikramjit Singh has already undergone
for a period of 02 years 07 months and 11 days inside jail.
10. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that
huge recovery has been effected in the present case, i.e. at the first
instance 1.012 kg of heroin from the car occupied by the petitioners
Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky and Awneet Kaur, and, thereafter, at the second
instance, 502 grams of heroin from the rented accommodation situated in
Mohali at the instance of co-accused namely Lovepreet Singh. One more
accused Deepak was also arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused Lovepreet Singh, from whose possession 2 kg of heroin was
recovered.
Thus, it is submitted that taking note of the total quantity
recovered, which falls under the commercial category, petitioners do not
deserve the concession of bail. However, the other factual assertions
raised by learned counsel for the petitioners have not been seriously
disputed.
11. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file.
12. Undisputedly, both the petitioners have already undergone
actual custody of more than two years and seven months. Further, out of
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 7
total 41 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only two
witnesses have been examined in their examination-in-chief so far. Thus,
conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
13. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, period of
incarceration already undergone by them, and the pace at which the trial
is progressing, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession
of regular bail to both the petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions is
allowed. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail,
subject to their 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.
14. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
15. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CRM-M-36019-2026
CRM-M-60489-2026 8
16. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are
directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be
deemed to be cancelled.
17. Both the petitions stand disposed of.
18. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
LAVISHA
2026.11.12 19:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document