Narinder Singh Alias Ninder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.218 Case No. : CRM-M-21008-2025 Decided On : August 26, 2025 Narinder Singh alias Ninder Singh ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.90 dated 04.10.2023, under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Khem Karan, District Tarn Taran.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in brief is that during routine patrolling on 02.10.2023 near Mehndipur drain bridge area, the police party nabbed one clean-shaven person, who after seeing them, threw one black coloured polythene bag along road side. On suspicion, he was asked about his identity. He disclosed his name as Shera Singh and on search of polythene bag thrown by him, it was found that the same contained one kilogram of heroin. So, the present FIR was registered
against the accused Shera Singh.
During investigation, the aforesaid Shera Singh disclosed that he and his brother-in-law namely Narinder Singh @ Ninder (present petitioner) used to smuggle heroin from Pakistani smugglers. At his instance, two kilograms of heroin was got recovered from the backside of house of Narinder Singh @ Ninder. Accordingly, the name of petitioner cropped up on the basis of disclosure statement of Shera Singh. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He has been nominated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in law. The petitioner is in custody since long. The conclusion of trial of the case will take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, was indulged in smuggling of contraband from Pakistani smugglers. The said crime is not against any individual but against the Society at large. Such type of accused persons are shaking the system of law and order and are creating nuisance not only to their own families but are also spreading the use of drugs in the Society, which is certainly not permissible at any cost. As such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency from the Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
The petitioner is alleged to be nearly related to co-accused
Shera Singh, being his brother-in-law, who has specifically named him in his disclosure statement, as indulging in business of heroin smuggling along with him. In his disclosure statement, he stated that about 25-30 days prior, they had ordered a large quantity of heroin from a Pakistani smuggler and had received three packets of heroin, out of which one packet was retained for immediate sale and other two packets were buried underground near the house of his brother-in-law Narinder Singh (the petitioner) for future sale. When, as per disclosure statement of Shera Singh, raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner Narinder Singh, then two kilograms of heroin was recovered, which was buried within the premises of the petitioner.
Thus, recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from premises of petitioner, coupled with disclosure statement of co-accused, prima facie establishes his complicity. As per the Status Report, besides the present case, another case under NDPS Act has also been registered against the petitioner. So, when in the instant case, there is huge recovery of three kilograms of heroin and prima facie, complicity of the petitioner seems to be there, then it is not a fit case where the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. Dismissed.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 26, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.