[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh @ Channu vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2026
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-17203-2026
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(211)
CRM-M-17203-2026
DATE OF DECISION: 07.04.2026
GURCHARAN SINGH @ CHANNU .... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate with
Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner..
Mr. M.S. Toor, A.A.G., Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.152 dated 16.09.2021
registered under Sections 18, 21, 23, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act and Sections
25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and Sections 61, 1, 14 of Excise Act at Police Station
Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty, secret information was received that Sukhwinder Singh @
Sukha (since acquitted on 20.02.2026) son of Gurmeet, Harmesh Singh
(since acquitted on 20.02.2026) son of Prem Singh, Jaswant Singh @
Chhinda Baba @ Shinda (since acquitted on 20.02.2026), Amarjit Singh @
Bittu son of Natha Singh and Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha (since acquitted on
CRM-M-17203-2026
::2::
20.02.2026) son of Ranjit Singh alongwith 5-6 unidentified persons were
indulging in smuggling of opium, heroin and arms through Pakistan at the
borders of Punjab and Rajasthan. Jasvir Singh @ Gaggu (since acquitted on
20.02.2026) son of Phumman Singh and Gurcharan Singh @ Channu
(petitioner) son of Hansa Singh were also active with these persons. If a raid
was conducted, the recovery of drugs, arms and illicit liquor could be
effected from the accused.
During the course of investigation, the recovery of 8 kgs. and
500 grams of heroin was effected from near the border with Pakistan.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied
with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the
time of search and seizure. As the petitioner is in custody since 31.08.2024
but only 02 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far in
the subsequent trial pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner, the same is not
likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the
concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal,
SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated
04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and
Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.
(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
CRM-M-17203-2026
::3::
29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023, moreso,
when co-accused/Jaswant Singh @ Chhinda @ Shinda, Jasvir Singh @
Gaggu, Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and Harmesh Singh were granted the
similar relief and no recovery had been effected from any of the said co-
accused.
4. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the border area
and the petitioner is named in the secret information. Therefore, in view of
the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not
entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in
custody since 31.08.2024 but only 02 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses
have been examined so far in the subsequent Trial.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on
01.08.2022 held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the
show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was
supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West
Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State
also. However, no one has entered appearance on their
behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612
of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and
CRM-M-17203-2026
::4::
37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station
Bongaon, West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed that
the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01
year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a
preliminary stage, as only one witness has been
examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending
circumstances but without expressing any views in the
merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on
bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,
SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-
"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave
Petition, who were accused of committing an offence
under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS
Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at
Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West
Bengal.
2. The allegations are that when the police party
intercepted the petitioners along with another person
CRM-M-17203-2026
::5::
riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession
of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl
bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115
bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from
the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested
on the spot and have been in custody for more than one
year and four months.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been
filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The
conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time,
regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to
conclude the same within one year from the date of
framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any
criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial
compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any
views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to
release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.
6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners
are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act
or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the
concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a
case, necessary consequences shall follow.
7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before
the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being
absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession
of bail.
CRM-M-17203-2026
::6::
8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.
9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
(emphasis supplied)
8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and
Hasanujjaman & others (supra)', the accused therein had been granted the
concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone
approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time
offenders as is borne out from the orders.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since
31.08.2024 but only 02 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses have been
examined so far. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and
the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail, moreso,
when the co-accused were granted the concession of bail and have since
been acquitted.
10. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner namely, Gurcharan Singh @ Chanu S/o
Hansa is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
CRM-M-17203-2026
::7::
11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases, if any, mentioned in the custody certificate dated 05.04.2026.
12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the
Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of
the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
13. The present petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
07.04.2026 JUDGE
Jitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
