CRM-M-47385-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47385-2024 Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Pronounced on: 16.07.2025 Gurjit Singh ...Peoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the peoner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 155 07.09.2023 Beas, Amritsar 21/29 of NDPS Act 1. The peoner incarcerated in the FIR caponed above had come up before this Court under Secon 483 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 5 of the bail peon, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegaons are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 07.09.2023, the police received a secret informaon that accused Kuldeep Singh and Gurdev Singh were selling heroin and even other descripons were provided. Subsequently, the police was able to nab them and they claimed to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973 and recovered 850 grams of heroin from Gurdev Singh and 150 grams of heroin from Kuldeep Singh. A>er the arrest, Gurdev Singh suffered a disclosure statement and named one Gurjeet Singh, Jobandeep Singh as the other persons and one Patwari, who were involved in supplying of heroin to them and they purchased about 17 kg of heroin from them. A>er that, in addion to the earlier recovery from the other accused, the police had recovered 500 grams of heroin at the instance of the peoner. 4. The peoner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. 5. The peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and contends that further pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and their family. 1 JYOTI 2025.07.17 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47385-2024 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following porons of the reply, which read as follows: “Role of the peoner 7. That the peoner was arrested on 08.09.2023 during the course of the invesgaon. During his custodial interrogaon, the peoner suffered a disclosure statement dated 08.09.2023, disclosing therein that the co- accused Jobandeep Singh was resident of his village, due to which they were having cordial relaonship between them and Amritpal Singh alias Bath, Balwinder Singh alias Binder and Abhayroop Singh were friends of the co-accused Jobandeep Singh and he also came in contact with the aforesaid persons and in March/April 2023, he and Jobandeep Singh started supplying heroin and he had supplied heroin to Gurdev Singh along with the co-accused Jobandeep Singh. He further disclosed that Amritpal Singh alias Bath, who was known to the co-accused Jobandeep Singh was having relaons with Pakistan based smugglers and Pakistan based smugglers used to supply heroin on asking of Amritpal Singh and Jobandeep Singh and Balwinder Singh used to pick the consignment of heroin from the border. He further disclosed that he had supplied two consignments of heroin to Abhayroop Singh in the area of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. 8. That a total of 500 grams of heroin from the Urban Cruiser Car No.PB02-ED-7749 was recovered at the instance of the peoner in the presence of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division A7ari, Amritsar (Rural) pursuant to his disclosure statement, which was taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 08.09.2023.” REASONING: 8. The quanty allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The peoner must sasfy the twin condions set forth by the Legislature under Secon 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. The peoner is entled to bail because for the same drug, and when the quanty involved was either more or closer to the quanty seized in the present FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: 2 JYOTI 2025.07.17 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47385-2024 10. In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 8557-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The peoner is an accused for the offences punishable under Secons 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcoc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegaon is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail applicaon was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year six months in jail. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the pares. Considering the quanty of the contraband arcles and the period of his incarceraon, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the peoner. 11. In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510-2024, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender a>er one year and six months of custody who possessed 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as follows: The peoner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Secons 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcoc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegaon is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail applicaon of the peoner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the peoner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent-State but no one has appeared for the State. Considering the period of incarceraon of the peoner and the fact that the peoner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the peoner. 12. As per the custody cerficate dated 30.06.2025, the peoner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year, 09 months and 17 days. 13. The prolonged incarceraon, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Arcle 21 of the Constuon and in such a situaon, the condional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Secon 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. 14. Following the judicial precedent menoned above, without commenng on the case's merits, and considering the peoner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, absence of criminal antecedents relang to drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceraon is not jusfied at this stage. 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 3 JYOTI 2025.07.17 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47385-2024 CONDITIONS: 15. Given above, provided the peoner is not required in any other case, the peoner shall be released on bail in the FIR caponed above, subject to furnishing bonds to the sasfacon of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepng the surety, the concerned Court must be sasfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 16. While furnishing a personal bond, the peoner shall menon the following personal idenficaon details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the aMesng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 17. This order is subject to the peoner’s complying with the following terms. 18. The peoner shall abide by all statutory bond condions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The peoner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 19. Given the background of allegaons against the peoner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitang the accused would be one of the primary opons unl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiMal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricon is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancon]. Given the nature of the allegaons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the peoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunion, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fi>een days of release from prison and inform the Invesgator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the peoner shall be entled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiMal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricng firearms would insll confidence in the vicm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeang the offense. 4 JYOTI 2025.07.17 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47385-2024 20. The condions menoned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Peon (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail condions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condions that would result in the deprivaon of rights and liberes must be eschewed.” 21. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the peoner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the peoner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 22. This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe oner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quan ty involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quan ty, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancella on of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the discre on to cancel this bail. 23. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. A cerfied copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Peoner can download the order from the Court's official web page and aMest it as a true copy. If needed, the aMesng officer can verify its authencity online and use the downloaded copy to aMest bonds. 25. Pe22on allowed in terms menoned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.07.2025 Jyo2-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 JYOTI 2025.07.17 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.