Gurmej Singh @ Geja v. State Of Punjab

::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (110) Date of decision: 27.04.2026 GURMEJ SINGH @ GEJA .... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in this first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65 dated 07.03.2025 registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 10, 11, 12 of the Air Craft Act, 1934 at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force, SAS Nagar.

2.

the brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that a Border Security Force (BSF) Team found/recovered a drone in the area of BSF chownki, Raja Mahotam village Khunder Hithar, District Ferozepur and the said information was conveyed to ASI Satpal (ANTF, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur), who upon receiving the information, along with police party reached at the above-mentioned spot, from where the following recoveries were made:

i.

One Drone (DJI MATRICE 300 RTK DRONE (MODEL:M 300)) (MADE IN CHINA),

::2::

ii.

Five polythene containing 528 grams of Heroin in each polythene i.e. in total 2 kg 640 grams HEROIN. iii.

One green bag marked as Nike iv.

6 Plastic indicator pipes The above-said articles/items/heroin were taken into police custody and made case property in accordance with law and keeping in view the above facts, FIR No.65 (Supra) was registered against unknown persons. 3.

On 08.03.2025, an FIR No.67 was registered against Joginder Singh @ Jinder and Judge Singh on the basis of secret information. The police party reached the house of Joginder Singh @ Jinder, where both Joginder Singh @ Jinder and his co-accused namely Judge Singh were apprehended. The recovery of 699 grams of heroine came to be effected from them. They suffered their disclosure statements to the effect that a smuggler from Pakistan, namely Chacha Baseri, was involved in drug dealing with them. The said Pakistani smuggler used to send drugs to them through drones. It came to light that on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025, Joginder Singh @ Jinder and his co-accused/Judge Singh were on call with the pakistani smuggler, Chacha Baseri, who initially sent three packets of heroin of 500 grams each through a drone, which both of them collected and took along with them. Later, one big drone with a large quantity of heroin was again sent. However, the Pakistani smuggler lost connection with that drone and told Judge Singh that he (pakistani smuggler) was not able to locate the same.

During the course of the investigation, Judge Singh made a disclosure statement stating that Gurmej Singh @ Geja (petitioner), his

::3::

brother-in-law was involved in the entire drug supply chain with them. Gurmej Singh @ Geja used to keep a watch at the spot, when he and Joginder Sigh @ Jinder used to go to collect drugs supplied by the Pakistani smuggler. Gurmej Singh @ Geja used to get his share of money for his participation in the drug smuggling. It transpired from the analysis of the mobile phones used by the three accused that the tower location of each of them was the same village/spot i.e. Rao Ke Hitharon, on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025.

Therefore, all the accused came to be nominated in the present FIR as well.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which has little evidentiary value as has been held in the case of "Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu", 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592. As the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025 but none of the 22 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, he be granted the concession of bail moreso when in FIR No.67 dated 08.03.2025 he has been granted the said concession. 5.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that Judge Singh and Joginder Singh @ Jinder, the co-accused of the petitioner, came to be apprehended with 699 grams of heroin in FIR No.67 dated 08.03.2025 under Sectins 21, 23, 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station ANTF, SAS Nagar. The mobile phone of Judge Singh was taken into possession and sent for forensic analysis. It revealed that the said phone contained the

::4::

photographs of the drug packets and drone seized in FIR No.65 dated 07.03.2025 registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 10, 11, 12 of the Air Craft Act, 1934. Therefore, they were nominated as accused in the present case. During the course of the investigation, they suffered their disclosure statements to the effect that the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of Judge Singh, was actively involved in the smuggling of contraband and was equally involved in the entirely drug chain with them. The petitioner got recovered indicator pipes attached with the packets of heroin. As the allegations pertain to cross-border smuggling of narcotics and there is further evidence in the form of call details and analysis to show that all the three accused were present in the area of village Rao Ke Hitharon on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7.

Admittedly, Judge Singh and Joginder Singh @ Jinder were apprehended with 699 grams of heroin. During the course of the investigation, they disclosed the name of the present petitioner as an active participant in the drug trade. They also admitted that the drugs recovered from an open field leading to the registration of the present FIR were smuggled from Pakistan at their instance. The mobile phone of Judge Singh also prima facie establishes this fact. The petitioner happens to be the brother-in-law of Judge Singh. The call detail analysis/tower location analysis would show that the petitioner along with his two co-accused, namely Judge Singh and Joginder Singh @ Jinder, were at the same place/village i.e. Rao Ke Hitharon on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025

::5::

where the drugs and drone etc. were recovered. Further, on his arrest, the petitioner got recovered plastic indicator pipes attached with the packets of heroin dropped via the drone. Prima facie, there is evidence more than the mere disclosure statement of Judge Singh and Joginder Singh @ Jinder inculpating the petitioner. Further, the case pertains to cross-border drug smuggling which needs to be dealt with an iron hand. 8.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present case and same stands dismissed.

9.

The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 27.04.2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No