[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shubham Kumar Alias Bamb vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M No.14977 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233
*****
CRM-M No.14977 of 2026
Date of decision : 22.4.2026
Date of uploading : 22.4.2026
Shubham Kumar @ Bamb .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 of
BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 147 dated
18.09.2025 under Sections 21, 27-A of the NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Doraha, District Ludhiana.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.09.2025, the police
party was on routine patrolling duty for checking of suspicious persons in
front of MB Chicken Market, G.T. Road, Doraha. Where they
apprehended accused Gurlal Singh @ Gora with 300 grams of heroin was
allegedly recovered from his possession. During investigation, on the
basis of the disclosure statement of Gurlal Singh @ Gora, accused Mohd.
Irsad, Davinder Singh and Lovepreet Singh were nominated on
19.09.2025. Accused Davinder Singh was arrested on 20.09.2025 and
705 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from him. Thereafter,
accused Mohd. Irsad was arrested on 21.09.2025 accused Lovepreet Singh
@ Lavi was arrested on 24.09.2025 and he disclosed the name of Roop
Singh, Jagga Singh, Tejveer Singh and 271 grams of heroin was
recovered from them. Accused-Lovepreet Singh also disclosed that he
used to contact co-accused Gurlal Singh through his mobile and also
stated that Kashmir Giri and Dinkar Kalia @ Shenty Kalia used to buy
heroin from him. On his disclosure statement, Dinkar Kalia @ Shenty
Kalia was nominated in the present case. On 26.09.2025, Dinkar Kalia @
Shenty Kalia, Vicky and Gulshan @ Gucchi and Vicky were arrested
from a car bearing registration No. PB-26K-4051 and 30 grams of heroin
was allegedly recovered from their possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has falsely been implicated in the present case as he was not named in the
FIR. He further submits that he has been nominated only on the basis of
disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in
evidence. It is argued that the alleged recovery falls within the ambit of
non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner is in
custody since 30.09.2025.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious. He has filed the custody certificate of
the petitioner in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the
custody certificate dated 21.4.2026, the petitioner has been in custody for
the last 6 months and 22 days and is stated to be involved in multiple
other more cases.
5. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone
through the record.
6. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that the trial is yet to commence and it will take a considerable
time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served for further
incarceration of the petitioner. As the petitioner is in custody for the last 6
months and 22 days; continuous detention of the petitioner would not
serve the ends of justice. Moreover, bail is rule and jail is exception.
Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular
bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, this
Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner
during the pendency of the trial.
7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions
that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the
petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
22.4.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
