Gurinderpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 Date of decision : 24.9.2025 Gurinderpal Singh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.141 dated 1.7.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural.

2.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, involving 17.04 grams of heroin and Rs.1500/- as drug money allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Shubham Singh @ Shibu, when he was apprehended by the police at about 7:00-8:00 pm on

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -21.7.2025, near bridge over drain at the outskirt of village Chhina. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with. Learned counsel has further iterated that the contraband is non-commercial in nature and it is only on account of alleged recovery of drug money of Rs.1500/- from co-accused of the petitioner that the police has sought to invoke provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, so as to debar the petitioner from securing bail. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 24.9.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 1.7.2025 and is in continuous custody since then; culmination of the investigation as also the trial emanating therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time. At this juncture, it is prima facie coming forth from the case put forth by the prosecution that alleged recovery from the co-accused is 17.04 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Further, the invocation of

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -3Section 27A of NDPS Act is on account of alleged recovery of Rs.1500/- shown to be as drug money from co-accused of the petitioner, but the basis thereof is confessional statement of the co-accused herself. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 7.

In the factual milieu of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that fetters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been met with so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It would be apposite to refer a judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161); the relevant whereof reads thus:

"14.

As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.

(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.

II.

The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -4are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. III.

The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV.

For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence": (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. (ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.

V.

For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). VI.

There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -5exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter." 8.

As per custody certificate dated 24.9.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about 2 months and 19 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.

and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -69. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

10.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

CRM-M No.53023 of 2025 -711. Ordered accordingly.

12.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 24.9.2025 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No