[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shingara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-65731-2025
Date of decision: 05.02.2026
SHINGARA SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The instant first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail in
case bearing FIR No. 141 dated 27.11.2024, registered under Section(s) 15,
25, 29 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.
2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of
secret information which reads thus:-
"As per prosecution version on 27.11.2024 Insp
Avtar Singh, Incharge CIA Staff Nawanshahr along with his
police party were present at bus stand Kariha, at about
12:10PM secret informer informed him that Davinder Kumar
1 of 4
S/o Pawan Kumar R/o Village Khoja, PS Rahon at present
residing at Saloh Road, Nawanshahr is supplying poppy husk in
District SBS Nagar after bringing the same from other states.
Informer further disclosed that said Davinder Kumar along
with his companions Gurminder Bhatia @ Ginda S/o Krishan
Pal R/o Village Behbalpur and Shingara Singh S/o Jagat Pal
R/o Village Binjo, PS Mahelpur, District Hoshiarpur have
brought heavy quantity of Poppy husk from Rajasthan in a truck
and they were going to supply said poppy husk after un-loading
the same from truck in another vehicle in the area of villages
Hansron, Dharamkot. If checking is conducted in these area,
Davinder Kumar along with his companions Gurminder Bhatia
and Shingara Singh could be apprehended along with truck
loaded with heavy quantity of poppy husk. On finding
information reliable, inspector Avtar Singh sent a ruqa and also
sent report under Section 42 NDPS Act. Consequently, the
present FIR was registered against above named Davinder
Kumar, Gurminder Bhatia and Shingara Singh under Sections
15, 25, 29-61-1985 NDPS Act. Thereafter, when police party
was going towards village Dharamkot, reached Link Road
Dharamkot, two persons were seeing on the tool box of the
truck near Sugar cane fields and one Innova car was also
parked behind said truck and two persons were present near
said innova car. On seeing the police party, two persons present
near said innova car fled away from the spot towards
Dharamkot Side along with innova car. Police chased innova
car but due to blockage of narrow link road by the truck, the
vehicles of police party could not cross said truck due to which
two persons remained successful in slipping away from the spot
along with Innova Car. The police noted the registration
number of Innova car as PB-32-AC-8058 and one of the person
sitting inside said innova car was identified as Davinder Kumar
@ Lala S/o Pawan Kumar R/o Village Khoja, PS Rahon,
presently residing at Saloh Road, Nawanshahr. Upon search of
apprehended truck bearing No. PB-02-ES-8788, 50 bags, each
2 of 4
containing 20 KG Poppy Husk were recovered and two persons
standing on the tool box of the truck disclosed their names as
Gurminder Bhatia @ Ginda S/o Krishan Pal R/o Village
Behbalpur, PS Mahelpur, District Hoshiarpur and Shingara
Singh S/o Jagat Pal R/o Village Binjo, PS Mahelpur, District
Hoshiarpur."
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is a Labourer and had been engaged by Davinder Kumar
to unload the truck. He contends that the petitioner was standing on the tool
box of the truck to unload the truck. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner is neither the owner of the truck nor employed in any capacity on
the said truck. He contends that having been engaged for unloading of the
truck, arguable issues would arise as to whether the petitioner was aware of
the contents to be unloaded and whether he can be deemed to be in
conscious possession of the contraband. He further contends that the
petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. It is
argued that notwithstanding the petitioner being in custody since
27.11.2024, no witness has been examined so far. The trial thus shall take
long time in its conclusion.
4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts,
however, he contends that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot and
that the contraband had been loaded on the truck on which the petitioner was
standing. It is further averred that out of a total of 19 witnesses cited by the
prosecution, 03 witnesses have been given up, hence, effectively only 16
witnesses are to be examined. He, however, does not dispute that no witness
has been examined so far.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and taking into consideration the role attributed to the
3 of 4
petitioner, he not being employed on the truck, the arguable issues with
respect to the petitioner being in conscious possession of the contraband, his
clean antecedents as well as the stage of trial, I deem it appropriate to
enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to
be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond
to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat
and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or
indirectly.
8. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case
on the basis of available material.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
FEBRUARY 05, 2026 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
