Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4657 (PNJ)

HARPREET SINGH @ HAPPY v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/64524/2025 · 2026-03-05

Mandeep Pannu

Transfer Petitionbody2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-64524- 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Harpreet Singh @ Happy State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 169 dated 22.06.2025, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2025, the petitioner Harpreet Singh along with co of Puda Colony, Amargarh and their possession. T allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co the report of the Chemical Examiner, the aforesaid 780 loose intoxicant tablets had 269 mg average weight per ta to 209.82 grams weight per tablet Thus, the total alleged contraba grams, which falls within the category of -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Harpreet Singh @ Happy VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU . Damanpreet Singh, Advocate fo Mr. Shubham Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 169 dated 22.06.2025, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2025, the petitioner Harpreet Singh along with co-accused Satpal Singh was apprehended by the police in the area of Puda Colony, Amargarh and 780 intoxicant tablets their possession. Thereafter, on 24.06.2025, 300 more intoxicant tablets allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co the report of the Chemical Examiner, the aforesaid 780 loose intoxicant tablets had 269 mg average weight per tablet, and the total weight of the alleged contraband came 209.82 grams. Similarly, the 300 loose intoxicant tablets had weight per tablet, and the total weight of the alleged contraband came to Thus, the total alleged contraband recovered in the present case comes to , which falls within the category of commercial quantity -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64524-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU or Shubham Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 169 dated 22.06.2025, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2025, the petitioner Harpreet accused Satpal Singh was apprehended by the police in the area 780 intoxicant tablets were allegedly recovered from 300 more intoxicant tablets were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the aforesaid 780 loose intoxicant tablets had , and the total weight of the alleged contraband came . Similarly, the 300 loose intoxicant tablets had 268 mg average , and the total weight of the alleged contraband came to 80.4 grams nd recovered in the present case comes to 290.22 commercial quantity. under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 169 dated 22.06.2025, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2025, the petitioner Harpreet accused Satpal Singh was apprehended by the police in the area were allegedly recovered from were accused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the aforesaid 780 loose intoxicant tablets had , and the total weight of the alleged contraband came 268 mg average 80.4 grams. 290.22 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64524- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the pe since 22.06.2025 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, Malerkotla dismissing the bail application of the petitioner treats the recovery as commercial quantity me basis of average tablet weight mentioned in the FSL report without identifying the specific psychotropic substance or its strength per tablet. It is also submitted that on the ground of parity, co interim anticipatory bail by this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. 4. Per contra submitted that the recovery effected in the present case falls within the category of commercial quantity attracted. It is further submit the alleged contraband and there is sufficient material available on record connecting him with the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the cases relied upon by lear inasmuch as the co petitioner was apprehended and the recovery was effected from his possession. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petitio 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. In the present case, the recovery effected from the petitioner and the co accused comes to of commercial quantity Section 37 of the NDPS Act -2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the pe 22.06.2025. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order dated passed by the learned Special Court, Malerkotla dismissing the bail application of the petitioner treats the recovery as commercial quantity me basis of average tablet weight mentioned in the FSL report without identifying the specific psychotropic substance or its strength per tablet. It is also submitted that on the ground of parity, co-accused in the same FIR have been granted the c interim anticipatory bail by this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the recovery effected in the present case falls within the category of commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted. It is further submitted that the petitioner was apprehended in possession of the alleged contraband and there is sufficient material available on record connecting him with the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable inasmuch as the co-accused were granted interim anticipatory bail petitioner was apprehended and the recovery was effected from his possession. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In the present case, the recovery effected from the petitioner and the co accused comes to 290.22 grams of intoxicant tablets commercial quantity. In cases involving commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and bail cannot be granted unless the Court -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody . Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order dated passed by the learned Special Court, Malerkotla dismissing the bail application of the petitioner treats the recovery as commercial quantity merely on the basis of average tablet weight mentioned in the FSL report without identifying the specific psychotropic substance or its strength per tablet. It is also submitted that on accused in the same FIR have been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the recovery effected in the present case falls within the category of and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly ted that the petitioner was apprehended in possession of the alleged contraband and there is sufficient material available on record connecting him with the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that ned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable interim anticipatory bail, whereas the petitioner was apprehended and the recovery was effected from his possession. n deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the In the present case, the recovery effected from the petitioner and the co 290.22 grams of intoxicant tablets, which falls within the category . In cases involving commercial quantity, the rigours of are attracted and bail cannot be granted unless the Court Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been titioner is in custody . Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order dated passed by the learned Special Court, Malerkotla dismissing the bail rely on the basis of average tablet weight mentioned in the FSL report without identifying the specific psychotropic substance or its strength per tablet. It is also submitted that on oncession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to , learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that the recovery effected in the present case falls within the category of and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly ted that the petitioner was apprehended in possession of the alleged contraband and there is sufficient material available on record connecting him with the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that ned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable , whereas the petitioner was apprehended and the recovery was effected from his possession. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the In the present case, the recovery effected from the petitioner and the co- ich falls within the category . In cases involving commercial quantity, the rigours of are attracted and bail cannot be granted unless the Court TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-64524- is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the possess petitioner, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to record a satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to parity also does not advance t petitioner, as the co petitioner is stated to have been apprehended and the recovery effected from his possession. 8. Keeping in view the commercial quantity of contraband involved Section 37 of the NDPS Act concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the present petition is 10. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands March 05, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. At this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the possess petitioner, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to record a satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to parity also does not advance t petitioner, as the co-accused were granted interim anticipatory bail petitioner is stated to have been apprehended and the recovery effected from his Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations commercial quantity of contraband involved, and the Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- is satisfied that there are 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. At this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the possession of the petitioner, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to record a satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to parity also does not advance the case of the interim anticipatory bail, whereas the petitioner is stated to have been apprehended and the recovery effected from his nature and gravity of the allegations, the , and the statutory bar contained under , this Court does not find any ground to grant the Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently in All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. At this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and ion of the petitioner, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to record a satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. The argument raised by learned he case of the , whereas the petitioner is stated to have been apprehended and the recovery effected from his , the statutory bar contained under , this Court does not find any ground to grant the However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.05 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document