[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawanpreet Singh Alias Bhaga vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-28458-2026 -1-
227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28458-2026
Date of Decision: 22.05.2026
Pawanpreet Singh @ Bhaga ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in a case FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2026, registered under Sections
21, 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 (offence under Section 21-B, 29, 61, 85 of
NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar
(Rural).
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 02.01.2026 the police
party while on patrolling when reached on the bridge of canal of village
Verpal, then they saw a young man coming from the left side of link road.
On seeing the police party, he got perplexed and thew a plastic envelope
after taking out from the right pocket of his lower. However, the police
apprehend him. On asking, he disclosed his name to be Satnam Singh. On
suspicion, search of the envelope being thrown by him was conducted and
5.68 grams of heroin was recovered from the same. He failed to produce any
licence regarding the possession of the same, and thus, on registration of the
FIR, he was arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced. Samples
taken were sent to the FSL. During the investigation, complicity of the
petitioner, namely, Pawanpreet Singh @ Bhaga was surfaced as was found
to be the supplier of the contraband. Hence, he was also arrayed as an
accused and was arrested on 03.01.2026. The petitioner approached the
Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for grant of regular
bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no
merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide
order dated 24.04.2026. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court
praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in
the present case. She submits that 5.68 grams of heroin has been allegedly
recovered from the co-accused. However, the petitioner was roped in the
present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused,
which is not even an admissible evidence. She submits that even otherwise
the alleged recovered contraband is 5.68 grams of heroin which is
marginally above the small quantity and falls under the non-commercial
quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not
attracted. To buttress his arguments, he submits the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents. He, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and
circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that it
was a case of chance recovery. It is submitted that 5.68 grams of heroin was
recovered from the co-accused and during the investigation, complicity of
the petitioner was found to be as supplier of the said contraband. On
instructions, she has submitted that the case is under investigation. She has
placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is deciphered that the alleged recovery of 5.68 grams of heroin was effected
from the co-accused and not from the petitioner. The petitioner had been
arrayed as accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure
statement of the co-accused. Admittedly, the recovered contraband i.e. 5.68
grams of heroin is marginally above the small quantity. The custody
certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 04
months & 18 days as on 21.05.2026. As per the custody certificate, the
petitioner has not criminal antecedents. The case is under investigation.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and
perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
