[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kabal Singh vs Union Of India, Narcotics Control ... on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-7817-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7817-2025 (O&M)
Kabal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Narcotic Contral Bureau ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 17.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor with
Ms. Samridhi Jain, Advocate
for the respondent/UOI/NCB.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the third petition, filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case NCB Chandigarh Crime No. 11/2023, dated 13.05.2023,
registered under Sections 8, 15, 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). He had filed
1 of 4
CRM-M-7817-2025 (O&M) -2-
previous two petitions for grant of interim bail.
2. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 12.05.2023, on the
basis of a secret information, the petitioner and co-accused Hajoor Singh, while
coming in a truck bearing registration number PB-02-BV-9528, were
apprehended by a team of NCB headed by Intelligence Officer Sharique Qamar.
On conducting search of the said truck, recovery of 1805.25 kgs. of poppy husk
was effected, which was kept in several bags and jute bags. Apart from this,
subsequently on 26.05.2023, drug money of Rs.5.20 Lakhs was also recovered
from the petitioner. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. After
completion of necessary investigation, the aforementioned complaint was filed
by the NCB against the petitioner and other co-accused.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He has clean antecedents. The mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with properly. As per own case
of the prosecution, when they reached at the place, the said truck was parked and
no one was present there. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted
against the petitioner as no recovery had been effected from his conscious
possession. The petitioner is aged about 71 years and is not maintaining good
health due to several age related diseases. The petitioner is in custody since
12.05.2023. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Continued
detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful purpose. It is,
therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that there
are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. Huge quantity of
contraband i.e. poppy husk was recovered from the aforementioned truck, which
2 of 4
CRM-M-7817-2025 (O&M) -3-
is owned by the present petitioner. The petitioner along with co-accused was
apprehended at the spot. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a
bail petition. The trial is going on at a proper pace. The rigors of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner is not suffering
from any life threatening disease and his prayer for interim bail on medical
grounds had already been declined by this Court. It is, thus, argued that the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to be found in
conscious possession of commercial quantity, i.e. 1805.25 kgs. of poppy husk,
which attracts the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The said
provision places a clear embargo on the grant of bail unless the twin conditions,
i.e. reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are
satisfied. At this stage, this Court does not find any material to record such
satisfaction in favour of the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the contraband was not recovered from his conscious
possession cannot be accepted at this stage. The truck from which the recovery
was effected is stated to be owned by the petitioner and he was allegedly
apprehended in connection with the said vehicle. The issue of conscious
possession as well as alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions are
essentially matters of evidence, which are to be adjudicated during trial and
cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. Further, the
recovery of alleged drug money to the tune of Rs.5.20 Lakhs from the petitioner
also prima facie connects him with the alleged offence. The magnitude of the
3 of 4
CRM-M-7817-2025 (O&M) -4-
recovery and the nature of allegations indicate involvement in a serious offence
having wider societal ramifications.
7. As regards the plea of old age and medical condition of the
petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the prayer of the petitioner for interim bail
on medical grounds has already been declined by this Court and no fresh or
compelling circumstances have been brought on record to take a different view
at this stage. Though the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023, the trial is
stated to be progressing at a proper pace. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
failed to make out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
20.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
