CRM-M-28608 CRM-M-39739 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 236 SATNAM SINGH @ SATTA STATE OF BALJIT SINGH STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH CORAM: PRESENT: SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Baljit Singh have 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner 28608-2025 39739-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SATNAM SINGH @ SATTA VS. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH CRM BALJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner In CRM-M-28608 of 2025. Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner In CRM-M-39739 of 2025. Mr. Manish Bansal, PP for U.T. Chandigarh. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Petitioners (Satnam Singh Baljit Singh have filed the instant petition 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28608-2025 Decided on : 23.09.2025 . . . PETITIONER . . . RESPONDENT CRM-M-39739-2025 ..PETITIONER ..RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manish Bansal, PP for U.T. Chandigarh. @ Satta), aged about 41 years and filed the instant petitions under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner . . . PETITIONER . . . RESPONDENT ..RESPONDENT rs and under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28608 CRM-M-39739 2 during the pendency of trial, who have arising out of First Information Name petitioner(s) Satnam Singh @ Satta Name petitioner(s) Baljit Singh 2. occupying Alto Car bearing Registration No.CH01AF3736 was occupied by three persons/accused namely Ahmad Pal and Baljit Singh car, all three of them were apprehended by the members of police team and thereon re from Satnam Singh @ Satta who was sitting on the rear seat and from third accused Baljit Singh who was beside the recovery weighing 3. recovered is taken into ac same has Court whi 28608-2025 39739-2025 g the pendency of trial, who have arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder : petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) 17 16.02.2025 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Baljit Singh 17 16.02.2025 21,22 and 29 of the NDPS ACT,1985 In the FIR it comes out that there were three persons/accused occupying Alto Car bearing Registration No.CH01AF3736 was occupied by three persons/accused namely Ahmad Pal and Baljit Singh, when all three were running away from all three of them were apprehended by the members of police team and ecovery of heroin weighing 19.55 gms from Ahmad Pal, 18.80 gms from Satnam Singh @ Satta who was sitting on the rear seat and from third accused Baljit Singh who was beside the weighing 58.37 gms. Counsel for the petitioner argues that if the individual quantity recovered is taken into account, it falls u has been clubbed making it comme ich is against the principle of law. g the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case Report, as detailed hereunder :- Section(s) Police Station District 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 Sarangpur UT Chandigarh Section(s) Police Station District 21,22 and 29 of the NDPS ACT,1985 Sarangpur Chandigarh that there were three persons/accused occupying Alto Car bearing Registration No.CH01AF3736 was occupied by three persons/accused namely Ahmad Pal Singh, Satnam Singh @ Satta when all three were running away from the spot by leaving all three of them were apprehended by the members of police team and heroin weighing 19.55 gms from Ahmad Pal, 18.80 gms from Satnam Singh @ Satta who was sitting on the rear seat and 20.02 gms from third accused Baljit Singh who was beside the driver seat and to ounsel for the petitioner argues that if the individual quantity under non-commercial quantity ercial quantity, against by the tr against the principle of law. been booked in a criminal case Chandigarh Chandigarh that there were three persons/accused occupying Alto Car bearing Registration No.CH01AF3736 was occupied Satnam Singh @ Satta by leaving all three of them were apprehended by the members of police team and heroin weighing 19.55 gms from Ahmad Pal, 18.80 gms 20.02 gms otal ounsel for the petitioner argues that if the individual quantity but against by the trial POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28608 CRM-M-39739 3 commercial qua each quantity months and 25 days 4. over copy of the petition in the Court and gone through the copy of petition as well as the impugned order. He is unable to dispute the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the recovery effected in the present case is prosecution witnesses that present petitioners are inside the jail since the time of their arrest i.e. 16.02.202 certificate involved in the other cases also already on 5. the other cases also petitioner Satnam Singh @ Sa police in a case of non commercial quantity. I have considered submission judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of Gujarat under:- 28608-2025 39739-2025 Counsel further argues that commercial qua each of the accused quantity. Petitioner being inside the jail since 16.02.2025 months and 25 days and prays for b Counsel for the State doesn’t dispute, who has been handed over copy of the petition in the Court and gone through the copy of petition as well as the impugned order. He is unable to dispute the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the recovery effected in the present case is taken separately from each of the accused prosecution witnesses only 02 have been examined present petitioners are inside the jail since the time of their arrest i.e. 25 and also points out that both the petitioners certificate involved in the other cases also n bail. Faced with the situation, petit the other cases also petitioner Satnam Singh @ Sa in a case of non commercial quantity. I have considered submission addressed by the learned counsel also. I have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court has held in of Gujarat 2005(7) SCC 550. Case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai reads as “Although, at first blush, the argument of th counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is further argues that the quantity recovered is non of the accused much less to the commercial side the jail since 16.02.2025 i.e. 7 bail. doesn’t dispute, who has been handed over copy of the petition in the Court and gone through the copy of petition as well as the impugned order. He is unable to dispute the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the recovery effected in the from each of the accused. Out of total 18 02 have been examined so far. He further sta present petitioners are inside the jail since the time of their arrest i.e. both the petitioners as per custody certificate involved in the other cases also but in those cases they Faced with the situation, petitioners counsel also points out the other cases also petitioner Satnam Singh @ Satta was involved by the in a case of non commercial quantity. I have considered this addressed by the learned counsel also. I have gone through the has held in Amarsingh Ramjibhai v. State . Case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai reads as “Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is the quantity recovered is non less to the commercial i.e. 7 doesn’t dispute, who has been handed the petition as well as the impugned order. He is unable to dispute the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the recovery effected in the Out of total 18 ates present petitioners are inside the jail since the time of their arrest i.e. s per custody are ioners counsel also points out in tta was involved by the this addressed by the learned counsel also. I have gone through the . State . Case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai reads as e learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28608 CRM-M-39739 4 6. relevant material custody period of more than period of 07 months and that till now none of the petitioners have been convicted in any of the case under NDPS This Cour for an indefinite merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner Petitioner bail/sureties/ Magistrate/Illaqa any other case. 28608-2025 39739-2025 fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased. Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High court to take the view th After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record and custody period of more than period of 07 months and that till now none of the petitioners have been convicted in any of the case under NDPS rt does not find any substantial r indefinite period. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Consequently, prayer made in the instant petition is Petitioners are ordered to release on bail, subject to bail/sureties/bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased. Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within aning of Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted”. counsel for the parties and perused the d taking into consideration the total custody period of more than period of 07 months and that till now none of the petitioners have been convicted in any of the case under NDPS A reason to keep the petitioners inside ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of Consequently, prayer made in the instant petition is allowed on bail, subject to their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased. Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within aning of Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the counsel for the parties and perused the aking into consideration the total custody period of more than period of 07 months and that till now none of Act. inside ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of allowed. their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28608 CRM-M-39739 5 7. threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 8. expression of opinion on the facts of the ca to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. found ind cancelled. 10. connecte September 23 Poonam Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: 28608-2025 39739-2025 Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly indirectly. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the ca decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. It is further made clear that i dulged in similar kind of activitie . Petition stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be ed case. September 23, 2025 Poonam Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. if, in future, petitioners are direc es, this order shall be deemed to e placed on the files of anot (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an se and the trial Court is expected decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence ctly o be ther (SANJAY VASHISTH) POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document