CRM-M-48057- 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Ms. Gurvinder Kaur Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner regular bail in case FIR No. 64 dated 17.05.2025, under Sections 21 A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the present case, accused Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused S his alleged possession, 06 grams of heroin and Rs. 800/ recovered. It is further the case of the prosecution that 32.40 grams of heroin and Rs. 1000/- as drug money were recovered from the co Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 21 and subsequently Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on vide DDR No. 37 dated 19.05.2025. -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate and Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner regular bail in case FIR No. 64 dated 17.05.2025, under Sections 21 A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sulwanwind, District Amritsar. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the present case, accused Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement accused Sauravpreet Singh. The petitioner was arrested on his alleged possession, 06 grams of heroin and Rs. 800/ It is further the case of the prosecution that 32.40 grams of heroin and as drug money were recovered from the co Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 21 and subsequently Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on vide DDR No. 37 dated 19.05.2025. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48057-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate and , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 64 dated 17.05.2025, under Sections 21-B/27 A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sulwanwind, District Amritsar. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the present case, accused Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement uravpreet Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2025. From his alleged possession, 06 grams of heroin and Rs. 800/- as drug money were It is further the case of the prosecution that 32.40 grams of heroin and as drug money were recovered from the co-accused Sauravpreet Singh. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 21-B/27-A/61/85 of the NDPS Act and subsequently Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on vide DDR No. for grant of B/27- A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the present case, accused Gurpreet Singh alias Sagar was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement 21.05.2025. From as drug money were It is further the case of the prosecution that 32.40 grams of heroin and uravpreet Singh. A/61/85 of the NDPS Act and subsequently Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added later on vide DDR No. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48057- 3. It is contended by in custody in the present case since 21.05.2025 and is no longer required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry, as he is presently in judicial custody. At the time of the alleged arrest, the police did not opt to conduct their own search to rule out the possibility of false implication, rendering the search vitiated and the alleged recovery doubtful, thereby taking the case outside the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and made a scapegoat merely because registered against him, all pertaining to the same police station, and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The total alleged recovery from the petitioner and the c commercial quantity, entitling him to the concession of bail. The petitioner submits that he has become a victim at the hands of the police and deserves the grant of bail in view of the facts and ci all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, is ready to face trial, and will not abscond. The bail application filed before the learned lower Court was dismissed on 17.07.2025 without assigning cog proclaimed offender, and no similar petition is pending before any other Court, nor has any such petition been filed earlier before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 4. Learned State counsel has on record and op involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested during investigation and, in his voluntary disclosure statement dated 22.05.2025, admitted his involvement in the sale of he disclosed that he had purchased 39 grams of heroin, out of which a substantial -2026 (O&M) It is contended by learned counsel for the n custody in the present case since 21.05.2025 and is no longer required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry, as he is presently in judicial custody. At the time of the alleged arrest, the police did not opt to conduct their own search to rule the possibility of false implication, rendering the search vitiated and the alleged recovery doubtful, thereby taking the case outside the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and made a scapegoat merely because he is already known to the police on account of other cases registered against him, all pertaining to the same police station, and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The total alleged recovery from the petitioner and the co-accused is 38.40 grams of heroin, which falls under non commercial quantity, entitling him to the concession of bail. The petitioner submits that he has become a victim at the hands of the police and deserves the grant of bail in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. He undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, is ready to face trial, and will not abscond. The bail application filed before the learned lower Court was dismissed on 17.07.2025 without assigning cog proclaimed offender, and no similar petition is pending before any other Court, nor has any such petition been filed earlier before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which is taken opposed the grant of regular bail. He involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested during investigation and, in his voluntary disclosure statement dated 22.05.2025, admitted his involvement in the sale of he disclosed that he had purchased 39 grams of heroin, out of which a substantial -2- learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is n custody in the present case since 21.05.2025 and is no longer required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry, as he is presently in judicial custody. At the time of the alleged arrest, the police did not opt to conduct their own search to rule the possibility of false implication, rendering the search vitiated and the alleged recovery doubtful, thereby taking the case outside the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and made a scapegoat he is already known to the police on account of other cases registered against him, all pertaining to the same police station, and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The total alleged recovery from accused is 38.40 grams of heroin, which falls under non commercial quantity, entitling him to the concession of bail. The petitioner submits that he has become a victim at the hands of the police and deserves the grant of rcumstances of the case. He undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, is ready to face trial, and will not abscond. The bail application filed before the learned lower Court was dismissed on 17.07.2025 without assigning cogent reasons. The petitioner is not a proclaimed offender, and no similar petition is pending before any other Court, nor has any such petition been filed earlier before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme he custody certificate, which is taken posed the grant of regular bail. He submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested during investigation and, in his voluntary disclosure statement dated 22.05.2025, admitted his involvement in the sale of heroin and disclosed that he had purchased 39 grams of heroin, out of which a substantial petitioner that petitioner is n custody in the present case since 21.05.2025 and is no longer required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry, as he is presently in judicial custody. At the time of the alleged arrest, the police did not opt to conduct their own search to rule the possibility of false implication, rendering the search vitiated and the alleged recovery doubtful, thereby taking the case outside the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been falsely implicated and made a scapegoat he is already known to the police on account of other cases registered against him, all pertaining to the same police station, and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The total alleged recovery from accused is 38.40 grams of heroin, which falls under non- commercial quantity, entitling him to the concession of bail. The petitioner submits that he has become a victim at the hands of the police and deserves the grant of rcumstances of the case. He undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, is ready to face trial, and will not abscond. The bail application filed before the learned lower Court was ent reasons. The petitioner is not a proclaimed offender, and no similar petition is pending before any other Court, nor has any such petition been filed earlier before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme he custody certificate, which is taken submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested during investigation and, in his voluntary disclosure roin and disclosed that he had purchased 39 grams of heroin, out of which a substantial TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48057- quantity was sold to the co grams of heroin and Rs. 800/ 5. Learned criminal antecedents, as he is involved in other cases registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, including one under the NDPS Act, which reflects his propensity to indulge in similar gravity of the allegations, his past involvement, and the likelihood of repeating the offence, he does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and per this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is 06 grams of heroin, which admittedly falls within the category of non petitioner has primarily been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whose possession 32.40 grams of heroin is stated to have been recovered. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is a matter to be tested during trial. 7. So far as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, reference has been made to FIR No. 41 dated 27.03.2024 under Section 379 IPC, FIR No. 48 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 379 01.08.2024 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and DDR No. 30 dated 05.12.2024 under Sections 129/170 BNSS, all registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar. Mere pendency of other cases, without any conviction, cannot by itself be made a ground to deny the conces when the recovery effected from the petitioner is of non 8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in -2026 (O&M) quantity was sold to the co-accused. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, 06 grams of heroin and Rs. 800/- as drug money were recovered from his possession. earned State counsel has further argued that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, as he is involved in other cases registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, including one under the NDPS Act, which reflects his propensity to indulge in similar offences. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations, his past involvement, and the likelihood of repeating the offence, he does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and per this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is 06 grams of heroin, which admittedly falls within the category of non petitioner has primarily been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused, from whose possession 32.40 grams of heroin is stated to have been recovered. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is a matter to tested during trial. So far as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, reference has been made to FIR No. 41 dated 27.03.2024 under Section 379 IPC, FIR No. 48 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 379 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and DDR No. 30 dated 05.12.2024 under Sections 129/170 BNSS, all registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar. Mere pendency of other cases, without any conviction, cannot by itself be made a ground to deny the concession of bail in the present case, particularly when the recovery effected from the petitioner is of non As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in more criminal cases, reference is placed upon -3- accused. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, 06 as drug money were recovered from his possession. has further argued that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, as he is involved in other cases registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, including one under the NDPS Act, which reflects his offences. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations, his past involvement, and the likelihood of repeating the offence, he does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is 06 grams of heroin, which admittedly falls within the category of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has primarily been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused, from whose possession 32.40 grams of heroin is stated to have been recovered. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is a matter to So far as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, reference has been made to FIR No. 41 dated 27.03.2024 under Section 379 IPC, FIR No. 48 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 379-B(2) IPC, FIR No. 91 dated under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and DDR No. 30 dated 05.12.2024 under Sections 129/170 BNSS, all registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar. Mere pendency of other cases, without any conviction, cannot by itself sion of bail in the present case, particularly when the recovery effected from the petitioner is of non-commercial quantity. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that , reference is placed upon the judgment of accused. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, 06 as drug money were recovered from his possession. has further argued that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, as he is involved in other cases registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, including one under the NDPS Act, which reflects his offences. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations, his past involvement, and the likelihood of repeating the used the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is 06 grams of ity. The petitioner has primarily been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused, from whose possession 32.40 grams of heroin is stated to have been recovered. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is a matter to So far as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, reference has been made to FIR No. 41 dated 27.03.2024 under Section 379-B B(2) IPC, FIR No. 91 dated under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and DDR No. 30 dated 05.12.2024 under Sections 129/170 BNSS, all registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar. Mere pendency of other cases, without any conviction, cannot by itself sion of bail in the present case, particularly As regards the submission of learned State counsel that the judgment of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48057- the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the ba the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing awa jurisdiction of the Court etc." 9. As per custody certificate, the about nine months and the trial is yet to commence/conclude, and its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarcerati indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 11. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case at trial 12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 25, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the ba the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing awa jurisdiction of the Court etc." As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last about nine months and the trial is yet to commence/conclude, and its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarcerati indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for f deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case at trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the petitioner is in custody for the last about nine months and the trial is yet to commence/conclude, and its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for and shall not be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the il application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and y from the petitioner is in custody for the last about nine months and the trial is yet to commence/conclude, and its conclusion is on of the petitioner for an Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for nstrued as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document