CRM-M-33038-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 251 CRM-M-33038-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Guri ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 189 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 27, 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station ANTF, District ANTF Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 11.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, co-accused Rajveer Singh @ Raju and Paramjeet Kaur @ Pammi were apprehended by a police party and recovery 295 grams of heroin was effected from Rajveer Singh @ Raju, whereas 20 grams of ICE was recovered from Paramjeet Kaur @ Pammi. Both of them were formally arrested. On interrogation, co-accused Rajveer Singh @ Raju disclosed that the present petitioner was also involved with them in sale/purchase of contraband. On the basis of the same, the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33038-2026 (O&M) -2- petitioner was nominated in this case as accused and was arrested on 29.08.2025. Some other persons were also nominated as accused in this case. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the above named co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co-accused. Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. The petitioner has been in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Co-accused Gurdeep Singh @ Pappu has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33038-2026 (O&M) -3- the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the above named co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband was effected. As per his disclosure statement, he used to buy contraband from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2025. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot be considered to be a ground for denying MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33038-2026 (O&M) -4- him benefit of bail in given circumstances. Above named co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. The principle of parity also weighs in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document