Gurjant Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-30265-2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30265-2026 Date of decision: 1st July, 2026 Gurjant Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 156 dated 10.06.2025 registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force (ANTF), District ANTF Wing, SAS Nagar (Mohali). 2.

As per the allegations on 10.06.2025, on receipt of a secret information, the petitioner and co-accused Charanjeet were apprehended and recovery of 360 grams of heroin was effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. They were formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

CRM-M-30265-2026 -23. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and a false recovery has been planted upon him. The co-accused has been extended the concession of bail. At the time of his arrest, no local police official had been informed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude, as none out of 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record custody certificate of the petitioner, she submits that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7.

The petitioner along with the co-accused was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband heroin. The allegations against him are specific and serious in nature. The quantity of the recovered contraband falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted in this case. The trial is going

CRM-M-30265-2026 -3on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences can also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantity of alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be granted concession of regular bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

8.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

9.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 1st July, 2026 Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes / No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes / No