IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 223 Villiam @William Masih State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 2. ‘Inspector/SHO he was leading a team of police officials, make Venue intercepted travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Villiam @William Masih 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 first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Section 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, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came Inspector/SHO Satpal Singh’, who had he was leading a team of police officials, make Venue, bearing registration No.PB46 ed. According to above-named police officer, five persons were travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12163-2026 (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. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.247 dated 06.12.2024 fence punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 249 of Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar. The 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 travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has 06.12.2024, 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 249 of into being at the instance of , when deputed for patrolling duty, a car colour white, was named police officer, five persons were travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was conducted, 4.660 kg of Heroin, were recovered. 3. 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused wer completed during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned three persons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed their identity as ‘Makhan’, ‘Sajjan also revealed ‘Harpal’ and ‘Gursewak’ 4. 5. respondent with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 6. 7. 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 CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 2 were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was conducted, 4.660 kg of Heroin, one 32 bore 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 wer 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’ and ‘William’ revealed the names of two other persons, who fled from the spot and ‘Gursewak’. Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed 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 (O&M) 2 were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was 32 bore revolver, and five live cartridges 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 wer , and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned three persons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed ’ and ‘William’ (the petitioner herein) and the names of two other persons, who fled from the spot, . I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that 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 were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was five live cartridges 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 three persons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed and , as appears on behalf of of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the ounsel for the petitioner that 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 also been contended by learned GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery of any contraband 8. 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 petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner rigors of Section should be accorded to the petitioner. 9. 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 Section-37 of NDPS Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car 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 counsel 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 noth 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 gors of Section-37 of NDPS Act should be relaxed and the benefit of bail 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 narcotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered from the car, wherein the petitioner was travelling d 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 benefit of bail. (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car 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 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 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 narcotic 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 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. counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car 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 ing 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 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 narcotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered coupled with the the scale of trade by abovementioned comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present 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 10. 11. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: i) ii) iii) iv) v) 12. abovementioned factors contraban petitioner is not entitled CRM-M-12163-2026 (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 qua 16 times more than the quan meant for ‘commercial quantity’; ii) that the recovery of weapon from the same vehicle further 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 a huge quantity of contraband cannot be carried in the pocket; iv) that the quantity of contraband recovered fr 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 nd, from the possession of petitioner petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. (O&M) 4 The record has been perused carefully. 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 ntity 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 ncing 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. 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 ntity’. In fact, it is fixed for the lower threshold that the recovery of weapon from the same vehicle 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 common prudence that such a huge quantity of contraband om the possession of petitioner being ‘commercial quantity’, the rigors of Section-37 in the present case. There is nothing prescribed 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 13. that being devoid of merit the same is hereby 14. shall not have any 15. disposed of, accordingly. 27.05.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-12163-2026 (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 disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 5 As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held resent 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 any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document