Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 1961 P&H

CRM-M-45214-2021                                                 -1-


207          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                            CRM-M-45214-2021
                                             Date of Decision: 23.03.2022
Gurpreet Singh

                                                               ......Petitioner
                                        Versus

State of Punjab
                                                            .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, DAG, Punjab.

                    ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.31 dated 26.02.2021, registered

under Sections 21(C), 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Special

Task Force, District STF Wing, Amritsar (Annexure P-1).

The allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith his

co-accused were arrested and a recovery of 255 grams of heroin was

effected from the tool box of the motor-cycle, which was being driven by

Gurnam Singh.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

recovery has been effected from the tool box and the petitioner was a

pillion rider and as such had no knowledge of the contraband lying in the

said tool box. The motor-cycle was being driven by Gurnam Singh and the

petitioner was sitting on the rear seat. He contends that initially he was in

1 of 3

Jordan and on account of his ill-health, he had been sent back to India and

was going to hospital for a check-up when the alleged occurrence took

place. He refers to some of his medical test investigations (Annexure P-2).

He also contends that he has no criminal antecedents though his brother

Gurnam Singh was involved in similar cases. He also submits that the

recovery of 255 grams of heroin is marginally above the commercial

quantity of 250 grams, which includes the weight of the polythene packet

and therefore, it would be debatable whether the quantity recovered is

actually commercial or non-commercial. He relies upon the judgments of

this Court in (i) Pritam Kaur @ Bawi Vs. State of Punjab, decided on

31.01.2020 in CRM-M-44066-2019, (ii) Satnam Singh @ Sattu Vs. State

of Punjab, decided on 17.09.2019 in CRM-M-30672-2019 and (iii)

Hardeep Singh @ Deepa Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 30.09.2013 in

CRM-M-26153-2013.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the

recovery effected is of commercial quantity and whether the petitioner was

in conscious possession or not would be a matter of trial. Therefore, at this

stage, he did not deserve the concession of regular bail, moreso, when his

brother Gurnam Singh was accused in other cases of similar nature. He,

however, admits the factual aspect of the recovery being marginally above

the commercial quantity.

I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in any other FIR

of a similar nature. It would be a matter of adjudication at the stage of trial

as to whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband

2 of 3

or not. The fact of the matter is that the recovery of 255 grams of heroin

was effected from the tool box, which is 5 grams more than commercial

quantity of 250 grams. Whether the recovery effected was of commercial or

non-commercial quantity would be adjudicated upon at the trial. However,

given the facts the petitioner has been in custody since 26.02.2021 has no

criminal antecedents and the quantity of recovery being a burdensome case,

the further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted.

Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case

but keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the

near future the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail subject to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate

concerned.

It is further made clear that if petitioner indulges in similar

offence for which he is currently charged, the State would be at liberty to

move an application for cancellation of bail.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an

expression of any opinion on merits of the case.

                                                (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                                                     JUDGE
23.03.2022
JITESH


             Whether speaking/reasoned          Yes/No
             Whether reportable                 Yes/No




                                3 of 3