Harpreet Singh Alias Pita v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.11.2025 Harpreet Singh @Pita ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present :

Mr. Kunal Choksi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act' only, the FIR No.64 dated 08.08.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Kheri Naudh Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. 2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ASI Jagdeep Singh, who had reported that on 08.08.2025 at about 05:00 pm when he was heading a police party deputed for patrolling duty, near bridge situated in Village Sua Kheri

Naudh Singh, he checked a car being driven by Gagandeep Singh @Gagan. As per above-named police official, the other occupant of the car was Harpreet Singh (petitioner herein). It has been further alleged by the prosecution that when search of the car was conducted as per laid down procedure, a plastic box was found near the gearbox of the car, and on opening of the same it was found to be containing an envelope and currency notes of Rs.1,000/-. According to above-named police official, when the envelope was opened, it was found to be containing heroin, and on measurement its weight came to be 25 gms.

3.

As per prosecution after the abovementioned recovery, the requisite formalities with regard to sealing & seizure of contraband, lodging of FIR, and arrest of accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the request has been opposed orally.

6.

Heard.

7.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 03 months, and that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered in this case is 25 gms of heroin, which is just above the upper threshold meant for small quantity, and only a friction of lowest limit prescribed for commercial quantity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that otherwise also nothing was found in conscious possession of the petitioner, and that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle from where the recovery of contraband had taken place.

8.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and that in the past also, he has been prosecuted for similar kind of offences. As per learned State Counsel, if released on bail, there is every likelihood that the petitioner will indulge in similar kind of activity again.

9.

The record has been perused carefully.

10.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for arriving at any decision with regard to present petition: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 03 months;

ii) that the quantity of contraband, recovered in this case, comes within the ambit of non-commercial quantity;

iii) that there is question mark with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of contraband or not, as the recovery had taken place from a car which was driven by another person;

iv) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 11.

With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home

(whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

12.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another', are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

13.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2022 INSC 222, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently". 14.

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024. 15.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

16.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered

to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial;

and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

17.

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No