Mandeep Singh Alias Master Alias Peepo v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.01.2026 Mandeep Singh @Master @Peepo ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :

Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. .

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act', hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act' and Sections 25/29 of Arms Act, the FIR No.258 dated 03.12.2023 has been lodged in Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. 2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being on 03.12.2023 at the instance of 'SI Dharminder Singh'. It was reported by the above-named police officer that when he was heading a police party deputed for patrolling duty at Village Rorewal, Amritsar, on the basis of suspicion, a person, namely Gurpreet Singh, was chocked and from his possession 572 gms of heroin was recovered.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned recovery of contraband, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR and arrest of accused were undertaken and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation the above-named accused, namely Gurpreet Singh, suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated Harchand Singh and Mandeep Singh @Master (petitioner herein).

4.

According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested and from his car, 300 gms of heroin was recovered. It has been further alleged that on interrogation, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement, stating therein that he had procured the abovementioned recovered heroin from Gurpreet Singh @Gopi @Samar. 5.

Notice of motion.

6.

appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

7.

Heard.

8.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that the recovery of abovementioned contraband from the possession of petitioner is just little above the minimum limit prescribed for commercial quantity, i.e. 300 gm, against the limit of 250 gm. As per learned counsel for

the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that he has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 02 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace, as in this case charges against the petitioner have not yet been framed.

9.

The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by the learned State Counsel. The learned State Counsel has argued that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case, 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 cannot be afforded to the petitioner.

10.

The record has been perused carefully.

11.

As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, are concerned, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the Act.

12.

In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabdi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC

110, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act. 13.

In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.' Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

14.

Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the

accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. 15.

In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 16.

The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

17.

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of 'commercial quantity', yet, the same is marginally above the lowest limit prescribed for 'commercial quantity';

18.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.

Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

19.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another', ( are also relevant in this case.

In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

20.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and

for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

21.

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 22.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

23.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and

, till the final decision of the trial;

and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 22.01.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No