Gurdeep Singh Alias Labhu v. State Of Punjab

 3.

As per FSL report, intoxicating substance was found to be 87 grams of Etizolam, and same has been considered as 'commercial quantity'. No direct or indirect link of petitioner is established with the alleged recovery, therefore, his involvement in the case is totally baseless, because, same is only on the basis of disclosure statement. Further argues that there are total 6 more cases, out of which 2 cases pertains to NDPS Act:- (i) FIR No.132 dated 25.12.2023 registered under Section 21B/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur. (ii)FIR No183, dated 15.11.2022, under Section 15/61/85,22/61/85 of NDPS Act and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at PS Dasuya, District Hoshairpur. 4.

In regard to the second case, i.e. FIR No.183 dated 15.11.2022 under Section 15/61/85, 22/61/85 of NDPS Act and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at PS Dasuya, District Hoshairpur. Learned counsel further argues that in the both other cases petitioner has already been granted the concession of bail. Petitioner has neither been convicted nor has ever misused the concession of bail. Petitioner being inside jail for about 11 months and 16 days (since 09.11.2024) and trial is also not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, petitioner cannot be detained for an indefinite period. Thus, counsel prays for bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the bail of the petitioner submits that the quantity recovered from the

co-accused namely Sandeep @ Sonu is commercial in nature i.e. 87 gram of Etizolam and petitioner being supplier of the same is equally liable and thus should not be granted the concession of bail. 6.

He further argues that such kind of incidents are at peak in the State of Punjab, which is spoiling the social environment. However as of now learned State counsel is unable to point out any specific evidence apart there is no statement to establish link of him with the main accused Sandeep Singh @ Sonu Sahi. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year (since 09.11.2024).

          

 

                                    

   The petitioner cannot be detained only for the reasons that he has been named by the police in other 2 other NDPS cases in which he is already on bail. Thus, it is admitted position that the petitioner is not a convicted offender.

    

                   

                !  

      

 !"   # !

 # !$ # 



        

  

 %& '

   

 (



 



   



   )  



    

 

  

 %% *         + +  

   

    (       

 *   (           

       %,    

     

  





     -

   



  



  %.  

 (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 10, 2025 archana