Gurdial Singh v. State Of Punjab




   
    

 !"!

#$%%&&'





 

!"

# 

$  ()*& *
 *+

, $  $# %& '( )



 * %& ''& !"

+++  *+-&.

)/

 & ))& ,- .

 

  

/

//

) #" )

&

.1 ') &

 )   # & 1 )

& prayed for grant of bail.

Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-
  



   

         !  " #$%   

         " #

  &      

     !  '  #

 (      

  

  !  '  #)   *+,  -    

         

   .

 # /  

                   

     001   ))& / ( ##)



 2 '   *&  3 / / (

 

 5

 '(

4)& #

  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

6





 )) *4

&

/

)

/

)) ./ $& 

/ 8*4

9

/

:+;

) ( '/

<&

 ) (

)

#

 3  )

/

#  &

")

< ) (<

/" () -

"/

 

( (

)/ "

 )

<

 ##

 &   #) ) #




        

  !

-



 

( 

#

 /# &

)  "



)  ( =/



&

>

/#

 ? /

 @ (4



)  )

"/ () "

(& ))

( <  

(  (

,/ 

  ' )

-& ) 

#<

 /<

"/ & #<

4

/ 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the status report dated 27.10.2025 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Hargurdev Singh, PPS, 1# # 

 )& "1(  # & & has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that name of the petitioner cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaswant Singh. Though, he admits that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Status report is also silent as to whether there was any call detail records/bank transactions between petitioner and co-accused ./ $&



 It is also the contention of the learned State counsel that recovery falls within the 'Commercial Quantity'. In view thereof, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in the provision are satisfied. That apart learned State counsel contends that in view of the past antecedents of the petitioner, who is involved in two other cases (one of which is of like nature), if lenient view is taken in his(P) favour, the likelihood of him indulging in similar offence and fleeing from process of justice cannot be ruled out. 1 /) "

 



) < 1/

 #<

 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7.

Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein case titled

 as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024, decided on 23.04.2024, it was held as under:-
/           0 2  23                  "&4#

    - /         

+5 +  



   6 7  +        

 5                 

   7        6          

   8 ,

"

#$% &"' (#  )    *+  , -  ./ ./& 



)

< 

& ;" #/

))A##

B



6C.D1D2 <#   /= "

( //) ? <
 , $ , $  & "'(#)  *+, -0/11 0& ;" #/

))& ( ( )

8)9A '

.1&  )

< # /

))&  4 /< *2
  &"'(#*+  , -0/110! 

 )

< #

))& )) 1( &

< )

>#



6C.D1D2 <# 8
//) ? <9

;" #/

,  &"'(#)  *+, - 0//.& ;" #/

)

># 

6C.D1D2 <#

 )

< 

"9

3 ( < (

/ 

() 4 







)) ) " #)#

4 4(& 4 !)  #

 "&

)

/

"(

))/ ) 4)



/#) & )



 &

() >

) 4

#) ) 

"

//



) #)

#

)/ )

)

 

)

" 5 6(  



 !/ &

)

 " /

(

< /" 

<

 #)#



)

( "

) &

#

  (  

&

/&

#)

" )

 & (  (



' )

-& ) 

#<

&

&



#)#

E$   )) =)# F  ;" #/

 ,01"&*

,

,2 "3#2#

,-%4./ && &.,!0!#5/%%  <&

"!)

 "A 

 )



A1   ) 3  "

 4  G

 /      

     5         5  /            /          93        



 

/         5    

   

   5

/         

           /                   

     :

            3     5            /        

 /         / 5                         2              

 / 5 

       /  5 3&

;              

')) <&

#

4

/ )

 < ")

  &

 

"

> ))

 (4

"

(&

) 

"( /   /

#

)



#

/

) # <



"(  . *+/ %%&&'

    4  2   @ #>A  GDA.

@ # " GDA.