[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Love vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-21436-2026 -1-
235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21436-2026
Date of decision :24.04.2026
Satnam Singh @ Love .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.193 dated 21.10.2024, under
Sections 21(b), 27-A and 21-C, 29 (added later on) of the NDPS Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Cheharta, District Police Commissionerate
Amritsar.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the police
party, while on patrolling on 21.10.2024, saw one boy was coming on
activa, who was signalled to stop. He got perplexed and instead of
stopping the activa, he tried to turn back the activa but got slipped.
Thereafter, he was apprehended by the police party. On asking, he
disclosed his name to be Suhail. He was suspected to be carrying some
contraband and on giving the offer, search was conducted. On conducting
the search of the activa, one transparent polythene bag containing 2.5 kgs
heroin along with a small computerized weighing scale and Indian
currency notes amounting to Rs.2000/-, were recovered from the boot of
the Activa scooter. He failed to produce any licence regarding possession
of the same and thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot.
The investigation commenced. During investigation, he made a disclosure
statement about the involvement of the presentpetitioner, thus he was
arrayed as accused and resultantly, was arrested on 21.08.2025. Samples
taken were sent to FSL. On receipt of FSL, trial commenced. Petitioner
approached learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for grant of
bail, however, finding no merit, his application was declined after hearing
both the sides vide order dated 15.11.2025. Being aggrieved, petitioner is
before this Court by way of filing the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the
grant of bail on the basis of parity with that of co-accused, namely, Pargat
Singh @ Sajan @ Sapp and Amandeep Singh @ Aman. He has drawn the
attention of this Court to the common order passed by this Court in CRM-M-
49959-2025 and CRM-M-62358-2025 of even date i.e. 20.03.2026 whereby
co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Pargat Singh @ Sajan @ Sapp and
Amandeep Singh @ Aman have been granted the concession of regular bail.
He has submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused,
who have been granted bail by this Court. He has further submitted that on
the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions
made by counsel for the petitioner. However, he has endorsed the fact that
case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused, namely, Pargat Singh @
Sajan @ Sapp and Amandeep Singh @ Aman, who have already been
granted bail by this Court. He has submitted that recovery of 2.5 kg of heroin
was effected from co-accused, namely, Suhail, which falls under the category
of commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are attracted in the present case. On instructions, he has submitted that out of
21 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He has produced
MAMTA custody certificate of petitioner, today in the Court, which is taken on record.
5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @
Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of
the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court
expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions
under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the
accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would
effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive
detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well.
Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as
enacted under Section 37 can be considered within
constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably
satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record
(whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not
guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial
of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those
enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20 xxxxx
21 .....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.
22 xxxxx
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
"as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional
the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see
Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in
194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the
accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss
of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well
as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and
ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.'
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his
arrest. The custody certificate produced would show that petitioner has
suffered incarceration of 07 months and 30 days as on 23.04.2026. It further
reflects that though the petitioner is involved in one more case under Section
379-B of IPC, however, he is on bail in the same. Admittedly, co-accused of
the petitioner, namely, Pargat Singh @ Sajan @ Sapp and Amandeep Singh
@ Aman have already been granted bail by this Court vide common order
dated 20.03.2026.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently
long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and
perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail on the basis
of parity with co-accused, Pargat Singh @ Sajan @ Sapp and Amandeep
Singh @ Aman who have already been granted regular bail by this Court
vide order of even date i.e. 20.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-49959-2025 and
CRM-M-62358-2025. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
