[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajan vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119-1
CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.04.2026
Sajan ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.04.2026
Gurjeet Singh @ Geeta ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-73891-2025.
Ms. Sunita Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-9679-2026.
Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Filed by two accused (petitioners herein), for grant of regular
bail in case arising out of FIR No.169 dated 30.09.2025, registered under
Section(s) 21C, 27, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar
Sahib, both these petitions are being decided by a common order. For the
facility of reference, the facts are, however, being adverted to from CRM-
M-73891-2025 titled as 'Sajan Vs. State of Punjab'.
119-1 CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
2. Separate status reports, by way of affidavits dated 01.04.2026,
have been filed by the State today. The same are taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that it is a case of
chance recovery on 30.09.2025 when the Police party headed by ASI Baldev
Singh was present at Tikoni, near Village Burra Gujar-Bhai Mahan Singh
Memorial Gate in connection with patrolling and shifting nakabandi and
intercepted a motorcyclist who came from the side of village Burra Gujar.
On seeing the Police party, the motorcyclist had got perplexed and had tried
to turn around but was apprehended by the Police officials. The suspect
disclosed his name as Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. He was served
with notice in terms of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 by the Sub Inspector Jagsir Singh (Investigating
Officer) with respect to his right of being searched by a Magistrate or a
Gazetted Officer. As per the option exercised, a request was made to the
Gazetted Officer Mr. Rachhpal Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police (NDPS
Act) to reach at the spot. The written consent of accused/Jaj Singh @
Sandeep Singh @ Seepu was recorded by the DSP and thereafter the search
was undertaken. On his search, a polythene was recovered from the bag
which contained 1 kg 100 grams of Heroin. No other objectionable material
was recovered. Accordingly, a case under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against Jaj
Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. The dope test of accused- Jaj Singh @
Sandeep Singh @ Seepu was also conducted and he was found positive
whereupon Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 was also added vide DDR No. 30 dated 01.10.2025. During
119-1 CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
investigation, Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu tendered a statement
under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and disclosed
that the Heroin was provided to him by Gurjeet Singh @ Geeta and Sajan
(petitioners herein), at the instance of his cousin Babbu son of Mahinder
Singh. Accordingly, the petitioners alongwith said Babbu were also
nominated as accused under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide DDR No.40 dated 04.10.2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends
that the petitioners were taken in custody on 05.10.2025 and during
interrogation, the petitioners were stated to have suffered a disclosure having
jointly led the Police party to a shed located at Ferozepur-Muktsar Sahib
Road, near village: Marmallu and got recovered 9 grams of Heroin from the
wall of the shed. The said Heroin was suggested to be segregated out of
1.100 kg of Heroin that was found in the possession of co-accused/Jaj Singh
@ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends
that as per the case of the prosecution, the drugs were to be supplied by the
petitioners to Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu, on the asking of Babbu,
who is residing abroad. She contends that the case against the petitioners, at
best is that of a conduit, who collected the contraband from the agents of
Babbu and to further deliver it to co-accused/Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @
Seepu. It is submitted that the nomination of the petitioners is based only
upon disclosure by the main accused for having received the said contraband
from them and that a recovery of 9 grams of Heroin has later been effected,
by way of their joint disclosure, from joint possession. It is contended that
119-1 CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
the case set up by the prosecution is that the petitioners had used a car
owned by one Deepanshu, to secure the contraband from two motorcyclists
who had come with muffled faces and had handed over the contraband to the
petitioners herein so as to further deliver the same to co-accused/Jaj Singh @
Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. It is submitted that the car in question is
undisputedly not owned by the petitioners. Besides, there is nothing on
record as to how the petitioners were contacted by Babbu for collecting the
contraband from the two motorcyclists and deliver the same to co-
accused/Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. It is submitted that the
involvement of the petitioners in the aforesaid offence is thus highly suspect.
The petitioners have been in custody for more than 05 months and that in so
far as petitioner-Sajan is concerned, he is involved in two other cases i.e. one
under the Excise Act and the other under Sections 323, 324, 325, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 while petitioner -Gurjeet Singh @ Geeta has clean
antecedents. It is further contended that the liability of the petitioners would
only be to the extent of the 9 grams of contraband recovered on their joint
disclosure, which is an intermediate quantity. They further submit that total
34 prosecution witnesses are to be examined in the present case and none
has been examined so far, hence, the conclusion of trial shall take a long
time.
6. Learned counsel for respondent-State, on the other hand,
contends that the names of the petitioners figured in the disclosure statement
of co-accused/Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu and thereafter, on their
joint disclosure, 9 grams of Heroin had also been recovered. Hence, their
involvement in the trade is well established. She further contends that the
119-1 CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
petitioner-Sajan has criminal antecedents and is involved in two other cases
including one under the Excise Act. It is contended that the petitioners
herein were contacted by Babbu to collect the contraband and further deliver
the same to co-accused/Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. It is
submitted that the petitioners are a link between the main supplier of the
contraband and the ultimate recipients of the contraband, hence, their
participation in the offence is established.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances as noted above, I am of the view
that there would be arguable issues with respect to the extent of culpable
liability of accused. It is the case set up by the prosecution that both the
petitioners had been jointly contacted by Babbu and were called upon to
jointly collect the contraband from two other accused persons (whereabouts
and identity not known and not apprehended) and to deliver the same to co-
accused/Jaj Singh @ Sandeep Singh @ Seepu. Thereafter, a joint disclosure
was allegedly made by both the petitioners to the effect that they were also
in joint possession of 9 grams of Heroin which they had concealed. The
same would give rise to arguable issues also with respect to the joint
disclosure & joint possession as well as mode and manner in which the role
of the petitioners has surfaced and attribution against them. Besides, the
petitioners have already undergone an actual custody of more than 05
months. Petitioner-Gurjeet Singh @ Geeta has no criminal antecedents
while co-accused/Sajan has no involvement in any other case under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The quantity of
contraband actually recovered from them is 9 grams of Heroin and is non-
119-1 CRM-M-73891-2025 (O&M)
119-2 CRM-M-9679-2026 (O&M)
commercial. The investigation in the present case is already complete and
final report has already been filed on 28.03.2026 and 34 prosecution
witnesses are to be examined. The conclusion of trial would thus take a long
time.
8. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners
are ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to their furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa
Magistrate concerned.
9. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat
and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or
indirectly.
10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case
on the basis of available material.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
02.04.2026 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
