Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 18.03.2026 GURPREET SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate, and Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1.
Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District (s) Gurpreet Singh, aged about 43 years 03.08.2025 15(C), 29 of NDPS Act Canal Colony Bathinda 2.
On 03.11.2025, following order was passed:- "2.
As per the allegations, when the police party chased the suspects, one person holding a black envelope in his right hand ran towards his house, entered it, and threw the envelope into an open space in front of the bathroom. Two persons were apprehended from the spot. The individual who had thrown the black envelope was identified as
Gagandeep Singh, while the other person, who had started checking the collection of gattas, was identified as Balwinder Singh @ Bhullar. Upon checking, total weight of the material found at the spot was determined to be 240 kilograms of poppy husk (20 kilograms each in 12 packets/gattas). Subsequently, during investigation, one of the accused, in his disclosure statement dated 05.08.2025, named the present petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, as the source from whom the said contraband had been procured.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to establish what was contained in the black envelope allegedly held by the main accused, Gagandeep Singh, nor there is any proof connecting the bulk material recovered near the bathroom to the accused persons, including the present petitioner. It is further argued that petitioner's implication merely on the basis of a disclosure statement of the co-accused is legally untenable and constitutes weak evidence. Counsel further contends that mere fact that petitioner is involved in three other NDPS cases cannot justify his implication in the present matter. It is further pointed out that petitioner has already been acquitted in one NDPS case, and in the remaining two cases, he has been granted bail, including one where the sentence has been suspended.
In the absence of any other corroborative material linking the petitioner to the alleged recovery, it is prayed that he be granted the concession of anticipatory bail, as he is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate fully if granted protection from arrest. Thus, counsel prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.
4.
Notice of motion.
5.
On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter.
6.
Adjourned to 21.01.2026.
7.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
8.
Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court."
3.
Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 03.11.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.
4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 17.03.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.
Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6.
Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 03.11.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.
However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
7.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.03.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:
YES/NO Whether Reportable:
YES/NO