CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Kuldeep Singh @ Deep ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Jaideep Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.21 dated 25.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 132, 221 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 21, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Sukhdev Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 24.01.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials deputed for patrolling duty near Indian Petrol Pump Lohara Bridge, Ludhiana, they intercepted a white coloured Renault vehicle bearing registration No.PB- 02CH-0939. As per above named police officer the driver of the abovesaid MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) 2 vehicle, despite signal, given by the police party, tried to run away and when attempt was made to intercept the abovementioned car one of the occupant of the car fired gunshot on the police party with an intention to obstruct the police officials from discharging its duty. It was further stated by the above named police officer that in the retaliatory action gun-shots were fired by the police party also, and that one of the occupants of the car, namely ‘Tranapreet Singh’ suffered gun-shot injury in the incident. According to above named police officer the driver of the abovesaid vehicle was identified as ‘Kuldeep Singh’ who was apprehended on the spot and other occupants of the car were ‘Surender Singh @ Sunny’ and ‘Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukh’. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation when search of the vehicle was conducted 305 grams of intoxicating powder (Heroin) was recovered from the dash board of the car. Thus, Sections 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act have been invoked in the present petition. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) 3 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that in fact, the entire story has been cooked up by the police with a motive to cover-up a story wherein they injured one of the occupants of the car namely ‘Taranpreet Singh’. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at initial stage when the FIR was lodged there was no reference of recovery of any contraband from the car, but subsequently, in order to give colour to the story developed by the police party, by showing recovery of 305 grams of intoxicating powder, i.e. Heroin, provisions of NDPS Act have been invoked in this case. 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. As per learned State Counsel in the present case there are very serious and specific allegations against the petitioner that he was driving a car wherein three other assailants were also travelling. As per learned State counsel from the dash board of the car, subsequent to lodging of FIR, 305 grams of ‘Heroin’ was recovered, and that the occupants of the car had also tried to obstruct the police party from discharging its duty by firing gun-shots. In addition to above, the learned State counsel has also contended that in the present case the recovery of contraband from the dash board of the car comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. 9. The record has been perused carefully. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) 4 10. 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 decision: - i) that the contents of the FIR itself shows that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot and that petitioner was driving the vehicle which he did not stop despite signal given by the police party. Thus it is apparent that the petitioner had tried to run away from the spot; ii) that the allegations in the FIR are quite specific that occupants of the car had fired gun-shots upon the police party. The above mentioned act of the occupants of the car in itself speaks in volume about the gravity of the offence; iii) that 305 grams of Heroin was recovered from the dash board of the car. The above mentioned quantity comes within the ambit of commercial quantity. Thus, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner; iv) that there is nothing on record to show that any of the twin conditions, prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act, stands satisfied in the present case. 11. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, the direct nexus of the petitioner with the commission of offence and the above discussed factors, it is hereby observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present petition deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 12. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27203 of 2026 (O&M) 5 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document