[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2025
CRM-M-51760-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110+217 CRM-M-51760-2025
Date of Decision: 12.12.2025
Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Aruz Khan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, AA, Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
CRM-50578-2025
This is an application for placing on record the interlocutory
orders (Annexure P-8) running from 12.09.2025 to 17.11.2025.
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
Main Case
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.99 dated 07.04.2023 registered under Sections 21,
21(c), 29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (Section 27 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Task
Force, Phase IV, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
1 of 5
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on
07.04.2023, ASI Makhan Singh, along with his fellow police officials was
on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, they apprehended
the petitioner and one Jatin, who were found in conscious possession of 1
kg. 560 grams of heroin. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with
the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure.
He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected
from the petitioner as well as co-accused Jatin and nothing more is to be
recovered from him. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is
not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody since
07.04.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands
presented and charges have also been framed. He further submits that there
are total 19 prosecution witnesses and out of them, 06 have been examined
till date, 06 have been given up and as such, the trial will take a long time to
conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind
bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is
serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused
Jatin, was apprehended at the spot with heavy quantity of alleged
2 of 5
contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. However, he has not
controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not
involved in any other case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 02 years and 08 months; he has clean antecedents;
investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been
framed; there are total 19 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 06 have been
examined, 06 have been given up and 07 are yet to be examined; the
complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, and will take a long time to
conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in
further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial
being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
8. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal
Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incarceration
on the ground of delay in trial in an NDPS matter involving commercial
3 of 5
quantity of contraband. Similar relief has been granted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a series of judgments, namely: Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul
Islam @ Alius v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 736/2024; Debrata
Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14970/2023; Santarul Islam
@ Santa v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.13169/2023; Indrajit
Mondal @ Piglu v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8512/2023; Narjul
Islam @ Najbul Hoque v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14172/2023;
Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.15284/2023; Mithun Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.16598/2023; Sk. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin Sk. v. State of West Bengal,
SLP (Crl.) No.3402/2024; Indadul Shah v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12670/2023; Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh v. Union of India; Ripon
Seikh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.16663/2023; Moidul
Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15668/2023; Saniya Bibi @
Soniya Bibi v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.2354/2024; Saddam
Hossain v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15496/2023; Bijon Sk. @
Golam Murselim v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.6046/2024; and
Subhas v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8823/2019.
9. Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a
violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648, while dealing with an
NDPS case, held that the principles of fairness embodied under Article 21
override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the
4 of 5
NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the Court observed:
"20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the
court would look at the material in a broad manner, and
reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The
judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the
satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the
accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a
reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous
examination of the materials collected during investigation (as
held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on
ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by
Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A
which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref.
Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors
the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable .
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling."
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
12.12.2025 JUDGE
D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
