[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Singh Alias Roopa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2026
CRM-M-65892-2025
CRM-M-13139-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109+203
CRM-M-65892-2025
BHAGWAN SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CRM-M-13139-2026
RUPINDER SINGH ALIAS ROOPA SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
Decided on : 16.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Kuljit Singh Bal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-65892-2025), and
Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-13139-2026).
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions,
i.e. CRM-M-65892-2025 and CRM-M-13139-2026 shall stand disposed
of.
2. Petition, i.e. CRM-M-65892-2025 is filed by the petitioner -
Bhagwan Singh, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.34, dated
26.03.2025, under Sections 21(C), 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.
CRM-M-65892-2025
Petition, i.e. CRM-M-13139-2026 is filed by the petitioner -
Rupinder Singh alias Roopa Singh, seeking grant of regular bail, in case,
FIR No.34, dated 26.03.2025, under Sections 21-C/29 of NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, on the
basis of chance recovery and mere suspicion, four accused, namely (i)
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, (ii) Rajan @ Tiddi, (iii) Bhagwan Singh
(petitioner in CRM-M-65892-2025), and (iv) Rupinder Singh @ Roopa
Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-13139-2026), were initially apprehended
and thereafter searched.
After seeking consent and on instructions of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, search of accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi was
conducted. During the search, a heavy object tied around his waist with a
cloth under his T-shirt was noticed. Upon opening the cloth and weighing
the substance, it was found to be 1 kilogram and 544 grams of heroin.
From accused-Rajan @ Tiddi, one Realme touchscreen
mobile phone was recovered. From accused/petitioner-Bhagwan Singh,
one MI touchscreen mobile phone was recovered from the right pocket of
his pant, and from the pajama of accused/petitioner-Rupinder Singh @
Roopa Singh, two mobile phones--one of POCO and one of Realme
company--were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that both the
petitioners are in custody for the last about one year and as per the
allegations, except for being in the company of co-accused Gurpreet
CRM-M-65892-2025
Singh @ Gopi, nothing incriminating has been recovered from any of the
accused persons, including the present petitioners.
It is further submitted that, except petitioner-Rupinder Singh
@ Roopa Singh, all the other three accused belong to the same village,
namely Kuralian, and therefore, joining the company of each other
cannot be said to be unusual. Moreover, recovered contraband was
allegedly tied around the waist of the main accused-Gurpreet Singh @
Gopi under his T-shirt, and therefore, there was no reason for the
petitioners or any other co-accused to have knowledge of the same, so as
to attribute common intention or conscious possession to them.
5. It is further submitted that challan in the present case was
presented on 22.09.2025, and charges were framed on 19.12.2025. Out of
total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date.
Therefore, culmination of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Thus, counsel jointly pray for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in the
present case.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status
report dated 15.03.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on
record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the
file.
7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the
offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is not against any
individual but is an offence against society at large. Therefore, petitioners
are not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
CRM-M-65892-2025
It is further submitted that in case, petitioners are released on
bail, there is every likelihood that they may create problems relating to
law and order and may indulge in similar activities in the future. Thus, he
prays for dismissal of the present petitions.
8. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it.
9. Admittedly, both the petitioners are in custody for the last
about one year, and charges were framed on 19.12.2025. Out of total 10
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date. Thus,
culmination of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The crucial
question before the trial Court during the course of trial, would be
whether the petitioners, who were allegedly present in the company of
the main accused-Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, had knowledge of the
conscious possession of the recovered contraband, or not. Therefore,
petitioners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period.
10. Considering the totality of the circumstances, nature of the
allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the factors noticed here
above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular
bail to both the petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions, i.e.
CRM-M-65892-2025 and CRM-M-13139-2026 is allowed. Petitioners -
Bhagwan Singh and Rupinder Singh alias Roopa Singh are ordered to be
released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa
Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
CRM-M-65892-2025
11. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
12. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
13. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are
directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be
deemed to be cancelled.
14. Both the petitions stand disposed of.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
16.03.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
