Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 119-2 Decided on : 09.03.2026 Gurdeep Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Gurdeep Singh 12.04.2023 21(c), 23, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, and Sadar Fazilka Fazilka 25 of Arms Act, 1959 [S. 27B of NDPS Act, added later on] 2.

A secret information was received to the effect that two suspected cars, i.e., (i) Hyundai Elantra and (ii) Honda Civic, were parked with their front towards Jalalabad side and some illegal activity was suspected to be taking place at the instance of four young persons. Upon being intercepted and apprehended by the members of the police team, they disclosed their names and identities as under:- (i) Person standing outside the car disclosed his name as Manpreet Singh;

- 2 - (ii) Boy sitting in the driving seat disclosed his name as Jaspal Singh @ Gopi;

(iii) Person sitting on the conductor side disclosed his name as Sukhdev Singh; and (iv) One young boy sitting on the rear seat disclosed his name as Dalvinder Singh.

From Honda Civic car bearing registration No. PB-63D-2370, no illegal article was recovered. However, from Hyundai Elantra car bearing registration No. PB-02-DP-0717, 23 packets of Heroin, total weighing 24.295 kgs, were recovered.

When accused Jaspal Singh @ Gopi was interrogated, he got recovered another 12 packets of Heroin weighing 12.620 kgs from near the bridge of Canal on Fazilka-Ferozepur road.

Two of the accused, namely Tarlok Singh and Gurdeep Singh (petitioner herein), were noticed by BSF near the border area in suspicious condition and were taken into custody by the police officials of Police Station Smejakothi. After the arrest of Gurdeep Singh (petitioner herein) and co-accused Tarlok Singh on 14.04.2023, they further disclosed the names of accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu, Harry and Navi as being involved in the illicit trafficking of Heroin comprising 35 packets. Thereupon, these three above named persons, were also involved as accused in the case. Accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu also disclosed that he was involved in the smuggling of the recovered contraband and that the same had been received from Pakistan during the intervening night of 09/10.04.2023. He further disclosed that about 10-12 days earlier, along with co-accused

- 3 - Vikram Singh @ Vicky and Gurpreet Singh @ Gori, he had procured ten packets of Heroin from Pakistan through a drone and from the money earned from his share, he had purchased a Swift car bearing registration No. RJ13C-2547 for an amount of 4.00 lakhs. ₹ 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Gurdeep Singh, has neither been named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from his possession. His name has been involved in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Gopi. Besides, he is a young boy aged about 20 years and there is no other case ever registered against him. In support of his contention, learned counsel refers to the comprehensive status report dated 07.03.2026, which has been filed today in Court by learned State counsel in the connected cases (including the present one).

A gist of the antecedents, as reflected in the said status report, is reproduced here-under:- Name & Parentage Age How nominated Allegation/Role Recovery, if any, effected Date of arrest, if already inside jail attributed and evidence against accused Gurdeep Singh s/o Kulwant Singh, r/o 10 KND District Shri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) 18 years Nominated vide DDR No.3, dated 15.04.2023 on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused Jaspal Singh Involved in cross border smuggling of Heroin Nil Arrested on 14.04.2023 Therefore, keeping in view the overall circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while vehemently

- 4 - opposing the prayer for bail, submits that keeping in view the nature of allegations and other circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

However, learned State counsel candidly admits that no recovery of any narcotic contraband has been effected from the petitioner and that his implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the coaccused. Besides, the other factual assertions, as noticed here-above, have not been disputed by learned State counsel.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

6.

Admittedly, petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor any recovery of narcotic contraband has been effected from his possession. His implication in the present case rests solely upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned State counsel has also not disputed the fact that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. It has further come on record that the petitioner was a young boy of the age about 18 years at the time of his nomination in the case and there is no other criminal case registered against him. The trial of the case is likely to take some time to conclude. 7.

In view of the totality of circumstances, and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, including the factors noticed hereabove, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

- 5 - 8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 10.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 09, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No