Gujarat High Court
Balwinder Singh Sajan Singh vs The State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 1485 of 2025
==========================================================
BALWINDER SINGH SAJAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The appellant - Balwinder Singh Sajan Singh has
preferred the present appeal through jail for grant of
temporary bail for 30 days since his application for
temporary bail was rejected by the Designated Court under
the NIA Act vide order dated 11.4.2025 in NIA Criminal
Misc. Application No.7 of 2025.
2. The main contention raised in the application
through jail is to the effect that the appellant has personal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
issues with his wife due to uncertainty faced by her because
of the instant case and she needs divorce on mutual
consent without hurting feelings of the appellant. It is also
contended that the appellant is unable to told his wife as to
when he will come out of jail and she has lost faith on the
assurance given by him and the fact remains that even after
45 months of custody only 27 out of 610 listed witnesses
are examined and that she want to move away from the
known persons and wanted to settle a fresh life in bigger
city in the interest of future of their son. It is also contended
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case
and even assuming without accepting original version of the
chargesheet against the appellant that he was carrying 700
gms contraband substance which was to be delivered to
Imtiyaz Ahmed and thus has stated that he is not accused
of receiving any delivery from Imtiyaz Ahmed which is
accused of interacting with Afghan nationals so as to link
seizure from the present appellant with that of the drugs
seized from Mundra Port. It is further contended that NIA
has not produced any evidence connecting him with Imtiyaz
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Ahmed or any Afghan national to link him with the drugs
seized from Mundra Port. It is further contended that NIA
has filed the reply as if everything is going well between the
appellant and his wife. However, it is stated that the
appellant is fighting to save his marriage and NIA's
contention is that divorce petition is not filed before any
Court is inhumane. That his brother Sukhwinder Singh @
Happy is living on his own working as a labourer and
cannot financially support the appellant's wife and his son.
That NIA's contention of tampering the witnesses is baseless
since all the witnesses relevant to the present case are from
Punjab Police and the question of compromise with them
does not arise. That the contention of NIA regarding
criminal antecedent is related to FIR No.109 of 2013 of
Fatehgarh Sahib Police Station, Punjab has no connection
with the instant case and that is bailed out in the said case
and has thus prayed for sympathetic consideration of his
helpless condition since his life will be meaningless without
his wife and son. That NIA cannot cherry pick of their
conversation with his wife to suit their convenience and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
thereby misleading the Court to prove that there is problem
amongst the couple. That as per the judgment of the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs state
of Odisha, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1109 wherein
it is clearly highlighted right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution which precedes the bar against granting bail
under section 37 of NDPS Act. That his family perish by the
time the remaining 583/610 witnesses are completed. That
NIA has failed to reveal the fact that his wife has left the
house due to difference of opinion with the mother of the
present appellant and because of strain relationship with
the family, the wife of the appellant wanted to handle the
said issue with the family members of the appellant in his
own terms and this was the reason that family members
were not aware of anything going on between the appellant
and his wife and has thus prayed to grant him temporary
bail for 30 days.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin relying upon
the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
Police, NIA, Ahmedabad has vehemently opposed the appeal
on the ground that there is ample material with regard to
involvement of the appellant accused (accused No.18) in
drug cartel which is controlled by the wanted accused
operating from Afghanistan in India via Iran and his
involvement with other co-accused in storing, purification
and distributing drugs amongst the general public in
Punjab, Delhi, Gujarat, UP and other States of India to raise
huge funds / drugs proceeds to support anti-national
activities against the India.
4. It is also argued that the application for jail
transfer preferred by the appellant was rejected twice and
the temporary bail application of the appellant was rejected
for five times by the learned trial Court as well as High
Court and that learned Special Judge, NDPS Fatehgard
Sahib Punjab vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2015
where the appellant was sentenced for 10 years rigorous
imprisonment and was also imposed a fine of Rs.1 lakh for
the FIR registered against him bearing No.109 of 2013 dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
19.6.2013 before the Fatehgarh Sahib Police Station,
Punjab under the provisions of sections 21 and 22 of the
NDPS Act.
5. It is also argued that the report submitted by the
Police Station, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar (Rural) does not
reflect the factum of any divorce case being filed or problem
with the husband and wife with regard to matrimonial
dispute is not known to any of the members coupled with
the fact that the present appellant is involved in high profile
case in drugs trafficking and is involved in drugs racket
business and the area where the present appellant is
residing is known where other dangerous drugs traffickers
rather imprisoned or absconding and there are all chances
that they may harm the present appellant in some way or
the other which might lead to detriment to law and order
situation and has thus argued to reject the appeal.
6. We have perused the appeal of the appellant
preferred through jail. We have also perused the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
rejecting the bail application of the appellant passed by
learned Designated Court in NIA Criminal Misc. Application
No.7 of 2025 dated 11.4.2025. We have also perused the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the NIA by Girish
Gothwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, National
Investigation Agency, Ahmedabad. It transpires that in very
systematic manner, entire drugs cartel is operating through
various persons in India where the present appellant is also
one of them, the question of accused knowing each other or
not is immaterial at this stage, more particularly, when
huge quantity of drugs of almost 2988.21 kg of heroin has
been seized from the container by DRI, Gandhidham and
the modus operandi of drugs cartel is very well explained in
the affidavit-in-reply and merely because the appellant is
caught red-handed with small quantity of drugs, it cannot
be said that there is no prima facie case against the
appellant in relation to the drugs seized at Gandhidham.
7. As far as granting temporary bail is concerned,
we are not inclined to exercise discretionary powers in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1485/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
favour of the appellant when serious allegations are levelled
against the appellant which prima facie surfaces from the
case papers, more particularly, reasons stated in the
temporary bail application preferred through jail does not
repose any confidence in view of the report submitted by the
Police Station, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar (Rural). Hence, no
case is made out for temporary bail coupled with the fact
that twin conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act being not
satisfied, the appeal stands rejected. Notice is discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
H.M. PATHAN
