IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 233 Sajjan Singh @Sajan Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 06.12.2024 and 29 of being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Section 249 of District Amritsar 2. ‘Inspector/SHO he was leading a team of police officials, make Venue intercepted CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sajjan Singh @Sajan Singh VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed with regard to a case arising out of 06.12.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 249 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Amritsar. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Inspector/SHO Satpal Singh’, who had he was leading a team of police officials, make Venue, bearing registration No.PB46 intercepted. According to above-named police officer, five persons were (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.247 dated fence punishable under Sections 21(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Ajnala abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of had reported that on 06.12.2024, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, a car bearing registration No.PB46-AF-0704 colour white, was named police officer, five persons were (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 21(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Ajnala, abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of , when deputed for patrolling duty, a car our white, was named police officer, five persons were GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was conducted, 4.660 kg of Heroin cartridges were recovered. 3. 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned three persons suffered their disc their identity as ‘Makhan’, ‘Sajjan’ also revealed ‘Harpal’ and ‘Gursewak’ 4. custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. 6. the petitioner of crime. owner of the car, and that in fact, he had hired the abovementioned car visit to Amritsar on payment basis. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner tha CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) 2 travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was conducted, 4.660 kg of Heroin, one . cartridges were recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned three persons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed their identity as ‘Makhan’, ‘Sajjan’ (the petitioner herein) revealed the names of two other persons, who fled from the spot and ‘Gursewak’. The learned State Counsel has fil custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the owner of the car, and that in fact, he had hired the abovementioned car to Amritsar on payment basis. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car (O&M) 2 travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was .32 bore revolver, and five live It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were , and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned losure statement, wherein they disclosed (the petitioner herein) and ‘William’ and the names of two other persons, who fled from the spot, The learned State Counsel has filed short reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the owner of the car, and that in fact, he had hired the abovementioned car to Amritsar on payment basis. It has also been contended by learned t the recovery of contraband was from the car travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was five live It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were . According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned losure statement, wherein they disclosed and , as short reply as well as ounsel for the petitioner that is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the owner of the car, and that in fact, he had hired the abovementioned car for to Amritsar on payment basis. It has also been contended by learned t the recovery of contraband was from the car GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery of any contraband 7. counsel for the petitioner that suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than one year and from the possession of concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner rigors of Section should be accorded to the petitioner. 8. abovementioned arguments. that the petitioner is the member of a group involved in the trading of narcotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered from the car, wherein the petitioner was travelling recovered the petitioner quantity of therefore, the case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the ben CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) 3 and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery of any contraband or weapon, the petitioner In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned ounsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than one year and five months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the instant case is rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act should be relaxed and th should be accorded to the petitioner. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel the petitioner is the member of a group involved in the trading of cotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered from the car, wherein the petitioner was travelling recovered weapon, speaks in volumes, in itself the petitioner. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of ‘Heroin’ comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under 37 of NDPS Act does not stand complied with in the present case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the ben (O&M) 3 and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery or weapon, the petitioner cannot be held liable. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned otherwise also, the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more , and that nothing has been left to be recovered petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the the instant case is the fit case, wherein the 37 of NDPS Act should be relaxed and the benefit of bail The learned State Counsel has controverted the It has been contended by learned State Counsel the petitioner is the member of a group involved in the trading of cotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered from the car, wherein the petitioner was travelling, coupled with the , in itself, about the scale of trade by State Counsel, the abovementioned comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under does not stand complied with in the present case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned otherwise also, the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more , and that nothing has been left to be recovered petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the fit case, wherein the e benefit of bail The learned State Counsel has controverted the It has been contended by learned State Counsel the petitioner is the member of a group involved in the trading of cotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered coupled with the about the scale of trade by abovementioned comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under does not stand complied with in the present case GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. 10. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: i) ii) iii) iv) v) 11. abovementioned factors contraband petitioner is not entitled CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) 4 The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a : - that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. In fact, it is 16 times more than the quantity meant for ‘commercial quantity’; ii) that the recovery of weapon from the same ve aggravates the offence; iii) that this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing that the recovery cannot be held liable for the same common prudence that such cannot be carried in the pocket; iv) that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner being ‘commercial quantity’, the rigors of Section of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that any of the twin conditions under Section-37 of NDPS Act present case; and v) that this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant that petitioner is not owner of the vehicle Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors coupled with the heavy quantity contraband from the possession of petitioner petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. (O&M) 4 The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a quantity of contraband recovered in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. In fact, it is more than the quantity fixed for the lower threshold meant for ‘commercial quantity’; that the recovery of weapon from the same vehicle further that this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing that the recovery being from the car, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. In fact this is a matter of common prudence that such a huge quantity of contraband cannot be carried in the pocket; that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner being ‘commercial quantity’, the rigors of Section in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that any of the twin conditions, prescribed 37 of NDPS Act, stands complied with in the that this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant that petitioner is not owner of the vehicle. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the coupled with the heavy quantity of recovered from the possession of petitioner, it is hereby held that the the benefit of bail. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a quantity of contraband recovered in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. In fact, it is fixed for the lower threshold hicle further that this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not being from the car, the petitioner . In fact this is a matter of a huge quantity of contraband that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner being ‘commercial quantity’, the rigors of Section-37 in the present case. There is nothing prescribed stands complied with in the that this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the recovered , it is hereby held that the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. that being devoid of merit the same is hereby 13. shall not have any 14. disposed of, accordingly. 27.05.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-23106-2026 (O&M) 5 As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held being devoid of merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 5 As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held the present petition deserves dismissal. Hence, , accordingly. it is clarified that the abovementioned observations bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held Hence, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document