[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurbachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                     CRM-M-4833-2026                         -1-

                     219         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH
                                                       CRM-M-4833-2026
                                                       Date of Decision: 29.04.2026
                     Gurbachan Singh                                          ..... Petitioner
                                                    Versus
                     State of Punjab                                         .......Respondent
                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
                     Present:    Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
                                 Mr.Raj Karan Singh, 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.120, dated 24.07.2024, under

Section 15(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added lateron

vide GD No.2 dated 25.07.2024 and Section 27 of NDPS Act added lateron

vide DDR No.47 dated 25.07.2024), registered at Police Station Lambi,

District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party while

on patrolling on 24.07.2024, received a secret information to the effect that

Gurbachan Singh (petitioner) is involved in selling poppy husk and had

stored a large quantity of poppy husk at his house. It was informed that in

case of raid, he could be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving

the secret information, a raiding team was constituted and reached at the

place as disclosed in the secret information and recovery of 03 quintals of

poppy husk was effected. He failed to produce any license regarding the

conscious possession of the same. Thus, the FIR was registered and he was

arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation

commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. The petitioner

approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar

Sahib praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the

sides and finding no merit in the same, learned Court declined the bail

application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2024. Earlier, the

petitioner approached this Court by thrice by way of filing petitions for grant

of regular bail, however, the same were dismissed by this Court vide

separate orders. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this

Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present fourth

petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in

the present case. He contends that admittedly, the FIR in the present case

was lodged on the basis of secret information and thus, there is violation of

Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that the alleged recovery of 03

quintals of poppy husk was planted upon the petitioner. He contends that

prosecution has filed supplementary challan against the co-accused and now

de novo trial has commenced and thus, there are chances of the trial being

not concluded in the near future. To buttress his arguments, he submits that

the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in

any other case. He also contends that there is violation of mandatory

provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in effecting the alleged recovery as

well. He, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the

petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the

petitioner was specifically named in the secret information and raid was

conducted at his house from where 03 quintals of poppy husk was effected.

He submits that on due compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS

Act, recovery of 03 quintals of poppy husk, has been effected in the present

case, which is commercial in nature and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act are attracted in this case. On instructions, he has submitted that

out of total 32 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He

has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it

is deciphered that as per the case of the prosecution, FIR in the present case

was lodged on the basis of secret information. As contended before this

Court, there is violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, in the

present case. Supplementary challan has been filed against the co-accused

and now de novo trial has commenced in this case. The custody certificate

would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 08

months & 29 days as on 27.04.2026. It further shows that the petitioner no

criminal antecedents. No witness has been examined out of total 32

prosecution witnesses.

6. 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 of law 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.'

7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the

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 sufficient

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 to the

petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion

on the merits of the case.