[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-16784-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220 CRM-M-16784-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision:27.04.2026
Gurcharan Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. The petitioner is approaching this Court for the third time by
making a prayer for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.126
dated 23.08.2024, registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act") and
Sections 25, 27, 29 and 30 of the Arms Act (offences under Sections 132
and 221 of the BNS were added lateron), at Police Station Special Task
Force, District STF Wing. The first petition as filed by him for grant of
interim regular bail for a period of six weeks had been allowed whereas the
second petition had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated
17.10.2025.
2. As per the allegations. On 23.08.2024, the petitioner along with
co-accused was apprehended on the basis of a secret information and
CRM-M-16784-2026 (O&M) -2-
recovery of commercial quantity of heroin and one .32 bore revolver was
effected from his conscious possession. Recovery of 260 grams of heroin
each was effected from the co-accused. The previous petition bearing CRM-
M-29731-2025 as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court by
making the following observations:
"As per the allegations, the petitioner along with co-
accused was apprehended by the police party and recovery of
280 grams of heroin along with a .32 bore revolver was
effected from him. Apart from this, recovery of 260 grams of
heroin each was effected from above named two co-accused.
The quantity of the contraband recovered from them
individually falls within commercial quantity. The petitioner is
shown to be involved in two more cases of similar nature.
Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
certainly be attracted in this case. So far as the medical
condition of the petitioner is concerned, as per medical status
report dated 28.05.2025, he is in stable condition and his vitals
are in normal limits. The trial is going on and there is nothing
on record to show that there would be any undue delay in
conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."
3. The petitioner, then filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.19908 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed
vide order dated 12.12.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his previous petition, there is a change in the circumstances as
the similarly situated co-accused Wassan Singh @ Fauji and Malkeet Singh
CRM-M-16784-2026 (O&M) -3-
@ Meet have been extended benefit of bail vide orders dated 17.03.2026
passed by a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-738-2026 and CRM-M-965-2026.
It is further argued that on the ground of parity as well as due to extended
period of his incarceration, the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit
of bail.
5. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued
that the petition is not maintainable as his previous petition had been
dismissed not only by this Court but by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well.
There is no substantive change in the circumstances. The case of the
petitioner cannot be stated to be at parity with the co-accused, who have
been extended benefit of bail as the fact that the bail petition of the petitioner
had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been brought to
the notice of the Coordinate Bench. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties at considerable length.
7. So far as the question of maintainability of his successive
regular bail petition is concerned, the well settled proposition of law is that
for the successive petition to succeed, the petitioner must show some
substantial change in the circumstances. In the instant case, the petition filed
by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court on 17.10.2025. Thereafter
about 3 ½ months back, the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner
against the order of this Court had also been dismissed on 12.12.2025.
Obviously, the fact that the bail petition of the petitioner had been dismissed,
had not been brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench by the co-
CRM-M-16784-2026 (O&M) -4-
accused, whose bail petitions have been allowed. As such, it cannot be stated
that the case of the petitioner is at parity with the co-accused. The petitioner
has filed this petition within a short span of dismissal of his previous petition
without showing any substantive or drastic change in the circumstances. As
such, finding no compelling ground to allow the petition, the same is
dismissed.
8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
harjeet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
