Guravtar Singh Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-53372-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53372-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.09.2025 Guravtar Singh alias Sonu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner 



 
 
 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.92 dated 16.05.2022, registered under Sections 21, 23 of NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 29 and 59 of NDPS Act, 7/13(1)(a)(II) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added lateron), at Police Station Special Task Force, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3 years and 2 months. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of coaccused Avtar Singh, who is behind bars while Sawinder Singh @ Bhola, Harpreet Singh @ Happy and SI Narinder Singh, who were also implicated based on disclosure statement, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2025, 23.09.2025 and 25.09.2025. The allegations against the petitioner is of having facilitating the commission of crime and pursuant to his own disclosure statement, 500 grams of Heroin has been recovered from his house. Charges have been framed on 24.02.2023, however, out of 43 prosecution witnesses, only 21

CRM-M-53372-2025 (O&M) 2 have been examined. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case under NDPS Act, but bail bonds are yet to be submitted. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 25.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 years, 1 month & 30 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in cross border smuggling of narcotics and the contraband has been recovered from his house. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and co-accused have been granted bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." 7.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR

CRM-M-53372-2025 (O&M) 3 (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

8.

This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.

9.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 1 month and 30 days; co-accused having been enlarged on bail; out of 43 prosecution witnesses only 21 have been examined so far, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is allowed. . 10.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the

CRM-M-53372-2025 (O&M) 4 offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

11.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

12.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 26.09.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No