Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29118 (PNJ)

SARBJIT SINGH @ SABI v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/24110/2026 · 2026-07-13

Jasjit Singh Bedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-24110-2026 (O & M) ::1:: (312) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24110-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gopal Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in this second petition under Section 483 of BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.169 dated 28.06.2025 under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (to whom the concession of bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 in CRM-M-57166-2025, as no recovery was effected from him), Sarabjit Singh @ Saabi (petitioner herein) and Pamma (since granted default bail vide order dated 27.12.2025 by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, Annexure P-5) came to be apprehended while riding on a bike driven by Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi. The recovery of Rs.200/- came to be VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24110-2026 (O & M) ::2:: effected from Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, 1 kg 06 grams of heroin came to be recovered from Sarabjit Singh @ Saabi and 1 kg 05 grams of heroin came to be recovered from Pamma Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are baseless. There is a violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure including Section 42 and Section 50. As the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2025 but none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and the Trial of the case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when two co-accused have been granted the concession of bail. 4. The counsel for the State has filed reply dated 08.07.2026 which is taken on record. While referring to the same, he contends that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner and his co- accused. The grounds raised by the petitioner are to be examined during the course of the Trial and cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The petitioner is unable to satisfy the requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed the offence in question and is not likely to commit one in future. The first bail application of the petitioner was argued and withdrawn on 21.01.2026. No significant change in circumstances have been pointed out entitling the petitioner to the grant of bail. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24110-2026 (O & M) ::3:: 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the case of the prosecution, the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the petitioner and his co- accused Pamma who has been granted default bail. The other co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi has been granted bail as no recovery was effected from him. The case of the petitioner is on a different footing. This Court, at this stage, cannot record a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that the petitioner has not committed the offence in question and is not likely to commit one in future. Further, the first bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn as recently as on 21.01.2026. The instant petition has been filed without any significant change in circumstances. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 8. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document