Jashanpreet Singh @ Ladi v. State Of Punjab

-1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 Jashanpreet Singh @ Ladi ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Sumeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.68, dated 17.07.2024, under Section 21(c), 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party was on patrolling on 17.07.2024 and when they reached near Mohalla Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, they saw that 03 young men standing near a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10-FX-7257 and were checking a black coloured hand bag. As soon as they saw, the police party coming towards them. They got perplexed and threw the hand bag on the ground and tried to escape. However, on suspicion, the police party caught them. On asking, they disclosed their names to be Kerry Sabharwal @ Gobi, Jashanpreet

-2Singh @ Ladi (petitioner) and Amanpreet Singh @ Gugli. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband in the plastic bag having been thrown and thus, the same was searched. On conducting the search of the bag, 330 grams of heroin was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus the FIR was registered and all were arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of the FSL, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 05.10.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the alleged recovery of 330 grams of heroin was effected from the public place, however no independent witness has been joined. He has submitted that there is a blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act in conducting the search. He has submitted that the petitioner has never been involved in any other case of the similar nature and he is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 17.07.2024, however there is no progress in the trial and thus, his right of speedy trial is miserably defeated. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner

-3deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner and co-accused was found to be 330 grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. He has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one Prisoner Act offence. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner along with the co-accused was arrested on 17.07.2024. The recovery of 330 grams of heroin has been effected from the public place, which is a commercial quantity. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 06 days as on 26.11.2025. It further reflects that there is only one case under the Prisoner's Act, thus, it is evident that he has no other criminal antecedents. Out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. 7.

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under

-4Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. xxxxx 21.

.....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.

22. xxxxx

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily."

8.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by

-5both the parties before the trial Court.

9.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail.

10.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 27.11.2025 rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No