[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Sinfh @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026
CRM-M No.12687 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229
*****
CRM-M No.12687 of 2026
Date of decision : 13.3.2026
Date of uploading : 13.3.2026
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Ms. Meena, Advocate, for
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.70 dated 25.7.2019 under
Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 55
grams of heroin allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 25.7.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
was initially arrested on 25.7.2019 whereinafter he was granted the
concession of regular bail on 19.9.2019. The petitioner continued to
1 of 4
appear before the concerned Court till December 2022 but could not
appear on 15.12.2022 and on subsequent dates thereafter, whereinafter,
the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 1.7.2023.
Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 26.2.2024 and is in
continuous custody since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that
the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 55 grams of heroin, which is
non-commercial in nature and the petitioner was duly granted bail in the
case on 19.9.2019. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner could not appear in Court as he had falsely implicated by the
police in other cases. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.3.2026
in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted the concession
of regular bail by the concerned Court on 19.9.2019 and he continued to
appear till 15.12.2022. Since challan in the case already stands presented
on 6.2.2020 and the trial is underway & the petitioner being in custody
now since 26.2.2024 in the FIR in question, which pertains to 55 grams of
heroin, which is on-commercial contraband, this Court is inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
2 of 4
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 12.3.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2
years, 2 months and 29 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the
antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering
a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a
ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
3 of 4
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of
every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to
the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any
offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is
found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on
bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise,
the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his
bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits
thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
13.3.2026
Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
