[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh Alias Gaggi vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
215 CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
.2026
Davinder Singh @Gaggi
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
[
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon
Sekhon, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab
Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Sanhita, 2023'. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.88 dated 22.11.2024,
22.11.2024
for the commission of offence
offence punishable under Section
Sections 15 and 21 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred
to as 'NDPS Act',
Act' Police Station Sherpur,, District Sangrur.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'ASI Balwinder
Balwinde Singh', who had reported that on 22.11.2024, when he was
leading a team of police officials, on the basis of a tip
tip-off
off given by a reliable
source, he visited the house of Davinder Singh @Goggi (the petitioner
herein).. According to above-named
above named police officer, when the police party was
approaching the house of petitioner, outside his house, there was a car,
CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
wherein the petitioner was sitting along with 'Hardeep Singh'
Singh',, and when the
search of abovementioned car was condu
conducted, 10 kg of poppy husk and 20
gms of Heroin along with drug money of Rs.4,15,000/
Rs.4,15,000/- were recovered.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband,
contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution,
when the petitioner was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement and
got recovered 01 kg of Heroin from his po
possession.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
respondent-State.
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same
sam be taken on record. No
o formal reply has been filed by
the State.. However, the learned State Counsel has orally oppose
opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel
ounsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for almost
one year and five months, and that the most significant lapse committed by
the Investigating Officer in the present case is that
that,, that as per prosecution
story, the recovery of 01 kg of Heroin had taken place on
n the basis of
information provided by the petitioner, but at the time of recovery, neither
CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
any person of the locality was joined, nor any senior officer was informed
about the same. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that
that the abovementioned lapse on the part of Investigating Officer
shatters the very credibility of the claim of the prosecution
prosecution, qua the fact that
the petitioner was found in possession of 'commercial quantity' of
contraband.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel
that in the present case, although at the first instance the quantity of
recovered contraband was not the 'commercial quantity'
quantity', yet, subsequently
bsequently
on the basis of information provided by the petitioner
petitioner, from his house 01 kg
of 'Heroin
Heroin' was recovered. According to State Counsel, the abovementioned
quantity of 'Heroin' comes within the ambit of 'commercial quantity', and
therefore, unless the
the twin conditions enshrined under Section
Section-37
37 of NDPS
Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. In the present case, it is relevant to note here that right from the
very beginning, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the
petitioner that on the basis of secret information, when he was nabbed by the
police party, he was found in possession of 10 kg of poppy husk and 20 gm
of Heroin.
11. The prosecution in the present case has very categorically come
forward with a plea that during the ccourse of investigation,, when the
CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
petitioner was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statem
statement pursuant to
which 01 kg of Heroin has been recovered. Since the disclosure statement
suffered by the petitioner has led to the recovery of contraband
contraband, prima facie
the abovementioned disclosure statement seems to be admissible in
evidence.
12. Otherwise also, it shall not be out of place to mention here that
the petitioner does not have clean antecedents. Earlier also, the petitioner has
been prosecuted for seven different offences and out of those seven offences,
one was under NDPS Act.
13. Since in the present case the quantity of recovered contraband
comes within the ambit of 'commercial quantity', rigors of Section
Section-37
37 of
NDPS Act are applicable and therefore, without satisfying the twin
conditions enshrined under Section-37
Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot
be enlarged on bail. The contents of the record show that there is nothing on
record to lead to a conclusion that twin conditions prescribed under Section-
Section
37 of NDPS Act stands complied with in the present case.
14. Taking into consideration
ration the cumulative effect of all the
abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that at this stage the petitioner is
not entitled for the benefit of bail.
15. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held
that being devoid of merit,
merit the present petition deserves dismissal. Hence,
the same is hereby dismissed,, accordingly
accordingly.
CRM-M-16478-2026 (O&M)
16. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations
shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH))
JUDGE
24.04.202
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
