Gurjeet Singh Alias Gaggi vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3931 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurjeet Singh Alias Gaggi vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.22634 of 2026 (O&M)                        1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           232                                            CRM-M No.22634 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 29.04.2026

           Gurjeet Singh @ Gaggi

                                                                           ......Petitioner
                                                 Versus

           State of Punjab
                                                                           ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Amti Kumar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition

pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.46 dated 19.03.2026, for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs

& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station City Sunam, District

Sangrur.

2. Briefly stated the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Harpreet Singh ', who had

reported that on 19.03.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials,

deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of suspicious conduct two persons,

one male and one female, were apprehended. According to above named

police officer when search of the body of above said two persons were

conducted, from the possession of male, who disclosed his name 'Gurjit

Singh', 12 grams of 'Heroin' was recovered. As per above named police

officer the female accompanying the accused had disclosed her name as 'Rani

Kaur'.

3. It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned

recovery of contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of

contraband, formal arrest of the accused and registration of FIR were completed

and further investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served, Mr. I.P.S.

Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence,

service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State

Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on

record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned

State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

6. Heard.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant

factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the

present petition:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one month and eight days;

ii) that except the present case there no other case, under NDPS Act, is pending/filed against the petitioner;

iii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession

of petitioner;

iv) that the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the ambit of non-commercial quantity. In fact, the recovered quantity is marginally above the upper threshold fixed for small quantity of 'Heorin' and only a fraction of lower limit fixed for commercial quantity;

v) that the investigation and trial of this case are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in the judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

9. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

"a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus

has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is

another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect

of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is

that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have

been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal

jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of

bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the

exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of

decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,

occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an

accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of

a case".

10. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it

has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is

abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the

Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to

think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications

will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up

consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of

a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal

with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

11. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be

said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has

been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and

extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our

justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and

the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in

order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

12. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as

mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab

and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

13. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered

to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be

subject to following conditions:-

i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

facts to the Court or to any other authority;

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish

the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change

in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;

and

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission

of trial Court.

15. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove

is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have

no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

29.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No