← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/73280/2025allowed

Gurjit Singh Alias Jassi v. State Of Punjab

2026-03-27Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary6 pages

​-​1​-​ ​IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT​ ​CHANDIGARH​ ​132​ ​CRM-M-73280-2025 (O & M)​ ​Date of decision: 27.03.2026​ ​GURJIT SINGH ALIAS JASSI​ ​....Petitioner​ ​Versus​ ​STATE OF PUNJAB​ ​...Respondents​ ​CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY​ ​Present :​ ​Ms. Kashish Thakur, Advocate,​ ​for the petitioner.​ ​Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.​ ​AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)​ ​1.​ ​Prayer​ ​in​ ​the​ ​present​ ​petition​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​483​ ​of​ ​BNSS​​is​​for​​grant​​of​​regular​​bail​​to​​the​​petitioner​​in​​case​​FIR​​No.44​​dated​ ​03.05.2024,​ ​registered​ ​at​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​Mehatpur,​ ​District​ ​Jalandhar,​ ​under Section 22 NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act added later on).​ ​2.

​ ​Status​ ​report​ ​by​ ​way​ ​of​ ​affidavit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Deputy​ ​Superintendent​​of​​Police,​​Sub​​Division​​Shahkot,​​Jalandhar​​(Rural),​​filed​ ​in the Court, is taken on record.​ ​3.​ ​Learned​​counsel​​contends​​that​​the​​petitioner,​​23​​year-old,​​has​ ​been​ ​in​ ​custody​ ​for​ ​1​ ​year.​ ​She​ ​alleges​ ​false​ ​implication.​​The​​recovery​ ​alleged​​to​​have​​been​​effected​​from​​him​​as​​well​​as​​co-accused​​is​​120​​loose​ ​tablets​​containing​​10.

​-​2​-​ ​ground,​ ​thus,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​debatable​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​can​ ​be​ ​said​ ​to​ ​have​ ​been​ ​in​ ​conscious​ ​possession​ ​thereof.​ ​Even​ ​otherwise,​ ​its​ ​usage​ ​is​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​Alprazolam,​​the​​commercial​​quantity​​for​​which​​under​​NDPS​​Act​​starts​​at​ ​100​​gms,​​unlike​​Etizolam,​​which​​is​​at​​2.5​​gms.​​Further​​that,​​co-accused​ ​Jagvir​ ​Singh​ ​alias​ ​Jagga​ ​has​ ​since​ ​been​ ​granted​ ​bail​ ​by​ ​the​​Coordinate​ ​Bench,​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​04.02.2025,​ ​after​ ​being​ ​in​ ​custody​ ​of​ ​about​ ​6​ ​months.​​Charges​​have​​been​​framed​​on​​21.08.2025,​​however​​only​​2​​PWs​ ​have​​been​​examined,​​out​​of​​16.​​He​​is​​involved​​in​​2​​more​​cases,​​wherein​ ​he​​is​​on​​bail,​​1​​of​​which​​is​​with​​regard​​to​​the​​salt​​Etizolam.

Re​liance​​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​.​ ​4.​ ​The​​custody​​certificate​​dated​​27.03.2026,​​filed​​by​​the​​learned​ ​State​​counsel​​is​​taken​​on​​record.​​As​​per​​the​​same,​​the​​petitioner​​is​​behind​ ​bars for 11 months and 30 days.​ ​5.​ ​Learned​ ​State​ ​counsel​ ​opposes​ ​the​ ​bail​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​commercial​ ​quantity​ ​of​ ​contraband​ ​was​ ​recovered​ ​from​ ​the​ ​petitioner,​ ​who​​was​​apprehended​​at​​the​​spot.​​However,​​he​​is​​unable​​to​​controvert​​the​ ​submissions​​with​​regard​​to​​stage​​of​​the​​case,​​the​​co-accused​​having​​been​ ​enlarged on bail and the petitioner being on bail in other cases. ​ ​6.​ ​Heard.​ ​7.

​ ​Hon'ble​​The​​Supreme​​Court​​in​​the​​case​​of​​Maulana​​Mohd.

​-​3​-​ ​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."​​Reiterating​​in​​Prabhakar​​Tewari​​vs.​​State​ ​of​ ​UP​ ​and​ ​another​,​ ​(2020)​ ​11​ ​SCC​ ​648,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​observed​ ​that,​ ​"The​ ​offence​ ​alleged​ ​no​ ​doubt​ ​is​ ​grave​ ​and​ ​serious​ ​and​ ​there​ ​are​ ​several​ ​criminal​​cases​​pending​​against​​the​​accused.​​These​​factors​​by​​themselves​ ​cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail." ​ ​8.​ ​Division​ ​Bench​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Bhupender​ ​Singh​ ​vs.​ ​Narcotic​ ​Control​ ​Bureau​ ​(2022)​ ​2​ ​RCR​ ​(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.​ ​In ​ ​Munasi​ ​Masih​ ​vs.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Punjab,​ ​CRM-M-31504-2022,​ ​on​ ​06.02.2023,​ ​wherein​ ​a​ ​commercial​ ​quantity​ ​of​ ​contraband​ ​had​ ​been​ ​recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail​.​ ​9.​ ​This​ ​Court​​in​ ​CRM-M-54873-2025,​​Sukhpreet​​alias​​Ajay​ ​vs.​​State​​of​​Punjab,​​decided​​on​​24.02.2026,​​granted​​bail​​to​​the​​accused​ ​from​​whom​​105​​pills​​containing​​10.71​​grams​​of​​Etizolam​​were​​recovered,​ ​considering​ ​his​ ​custody​ ​of​ ​11​ ​months​ ​and​ ​17​ ​days.​ ​Further,​ ​in​ ​CRM-M-53756-2025,​​Harjit​​Singh​​@​​Sonu​​Doctor​​vs.

​​State​​of​​Punjab,​ ​decided​ ​on​ ​12.11.2025,​ ​bail​​was​​granted​​to​​the​​petitioner,​​after​​being​​in​ ​custody​ ​for​ ​more​ ​than​ ​11​ ​months,​ ​from​ ​whom​ ​95​ ​tablets,​ ​containing​ ​11.875 grams of Etizolam salt was recovered.

​-​4​-​ ​10.​ ​In​​Baljit​​Singh​​@​​Mintu​​@​​Baljit​​Gill​​vs.​​State​​of​​Punjab​,​ ​CRM-M-15588-2024,​ ​a​ ​case​ ​wherein​ ​40​ ​tablets,​​containing​​commercial​ ​quantity​​of​​the​​salt​​Etizolam​​were​​recovered,​​this​​Court​​while​​considering​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​hard​ ​drug​ ​like​ ​heroin,​ ​charas​ ​or​ ​other​ ​synthetic​ ​ones,​ ​granted​​bail​​to​​the​​petitioner​​therein,​​who​​was​​involved​​in​​5​​other​​cases​​of​ ​similar​​nature,​​after​​being​​in​​custody​​for​​a​​period​​of​​1​​year,​​1​​month​​and​​8​ ​days.​ ​11.​ ​Relying​ ​on​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​judgment,​ ​in​ ​Pawan​ ​Kumar​ ​vs.​ ​State​​of​​Punjab​,​​CRM-M-24404-2025,​​decided​​on​​04.07.2025,​​bail​​was​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​therein,​ ​after​ ​9​ ​months,​ ​from​ ​whom​ ​also,​ ​commercial​​quantity​​of​​Etizolam​​was​​recovered.

​​In​​CRM-M-22148-2025,​ ​titled​​as​​Amit​​Kumar​​vs.​​State​​of​​Punjab,​​dated​​10.12.2025,​​wherein​​40​ ​tablets​​of​​Etizolam​​were​​recovered,​​this​​Court​​enlarged​​the​​petitioner​​on​ ​bail whilst taking note of his custody of 1 year, 2 months and 27 days.​ ​12.​ ​Considering​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​in​ ​particular​ ​that​ ​the​​petitioner​​is​​in​​custody​​for​​the​​last​​11​​months​​and​​30​ ​days​;​​on​​bail​​in​​other​​cases;​​c-accused​​is​​on​​bail; ​​charges​​stand​​framed​​on​ ​21.08.

2025,​ ​but​ ​out​ ​of​ ​16,​​only​​2​​PWs​​have​​been​​examined,​​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.

​-​5​-​ ​13.​ ​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​ ​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.​ ​14.

​ ​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.

​-​6​-​ ​15.​ ​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.​ ​27.03.2026​ ​(AMAN CHAUDHARY)​ ​parveen kumar​ ​JUDGE​ ​Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No​ ​Whether reportable​ ​: Yes / No​