[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Billa vs State Of Punjab on 10 February, 2026
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.02.2026
Pronounced on : 10.02.2026
Gurpreet Singh @Billa
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Argued by : Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard
to FIR No.49 dated 16.11.2023 under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of 'Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act', hereinafter being referred to as
'NDPS Act', Police Station State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar. The
abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'ASI Gurpinder
Singh', who had reported that on 16.11.2023 when he was leading a police
party deputed for usual law and order duty, a reliable source gave him a tip-
off that Gupreet Singh @Billa (petitioner herein) confined in Central Jail
Jammu had formed a group with Niranjan Singh, and that the
abovementioned group was involved in inter-state smuggling of narcotic
substance. According to abovementioned report, it was also informed by the
informer that on the instructions of 'Gurpreet Singh', Niranjan Singh had
received huge quantity of heroin, and that on that day on the instructions of
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
Gupreet Singh Niranjan Singh was going to deliver the same in his Swift
car.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
information, firstly information was sent to the police station and senior
police officers and thereafter, the FIR of this case lodged. According to
prosecution, acting upon the abovementioned information, Inspector
Inderdeep Singh intercepted the car of Niranjan Singh near Model Town
Colony, Zira and conducted search of his car as per prescribed rules and
procedures. As per prosecution, in the abovementioned checking, 3.5 kg of
Heroin was recovered from the car of Niranjan Singh and thereafter,
requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband and
formal arrest of accused were undertaking.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the course of
investigation, the accused Niranjan Singh was interrogated, who in his
disclosure statement, disclosed that Ravi Kumar @None and Gurpreet Singh
(petitioner herein), who were confined in Central Jail Jammu, were involved
in smuggling of Heroin along with him. As per prosecution, in view of
abovementioned information, when Gurpreet Singh was joined in the
investigation of present case, he, too, suffered a disclosure statement,
wherein he disclosed that two pistols of .30 bore and one pistol of .32 bore
were procured by him and that he used to send drug money to Pakistan
through Hawala racket with the help of Lovepreet Singh. It was also
disclosed that .30 bore pistol along with three live cartridges was handed
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
over by him to Lovepreet Singh and remaining two pistols to Jarnail Singh
S/o Balkar Singh.
4. According to prosecution, pursuant to abovementioned
disclosure statement Lovepreet Singh was arrested and from his possession,
.32 bore pistol was recovered (from his house) which was duly seized by the
police.
5. The record has been perused carefully.
6. Since in the present case recovery of huge quantity of
contraband, from the co-accused Niranjan Singh, is involved, the principles
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
'Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana' 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are
relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the
spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of
statement of co-accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused.
7. Similarly, in the case of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs.
Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence' 2018(8) SCC 271,
it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure
statement of co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the
disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other
accused.
8. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4)
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement
of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not
against the co-accused.
9. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also,
it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that
confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act
cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.
10. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
(i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more
than two years and two months;
(ii) that no drug or narcotic substance has been recovered from
the possession of petitioner;
(iii) that the petitioner is not the owner of car, from which the
recovery of contraband had taken place;
(iv) that nothing is left to be recovered from possession of
petitioner;
(v) that at the most the allegation against the petitioner could be
for delivery of pistol to co-accused Lovepreet Singh;
(vi) that qua recovery of narcotic substance, except the
disclosure statement of co-accused Niranjan Singh, there is
no other connecting evidence. The abovesaid disclosure
statement, too, was recorded when Niranjan Singh was in
custody. Thus, there is a question mark on the admissibility
of abovesaid disclosure statement, qua the role attributed to
the petitioner;
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
(vii) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
(viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not likely to
serve any purpose;
(ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses; and
(x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in trial.
11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also 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
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
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".
12. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', ( 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".
13. 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
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
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".
14. 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 the accused as mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
16. 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 abovementioned concession
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 to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority.
CRM-M-4069-2025 (O&M)
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and
, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
10.02.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
