SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

215 CRM-M-37562-2025

Date of decision: 13.01.2026

AJAY SHARMA ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

226 CRM-M-59760-2025

JASWANT SINGH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

228 CRM-M-60721-2025

LIYA ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

C ORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRM-M-37562-2025.

Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRM-M-59760-2025.

Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRM-M-60721-2025.

Mr. Rituraj Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****

R AJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. In the above mentioned petitions common question of law and facts are involved, so all the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. For

brevity, facts are being taken from CRM-M-37562-2025 titled as “Ajay Sharma Versus State of Punjab.”

2. Petitioner(s) have approached by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.70 dated 18.12.2024 under Sections 21-C and 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently), registered at Police Station Tibber, District Gurdaspur. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the police party, while on patrolling on18.12.2024, saw an Activa Scooter which was being driven by a girl and a boy was sitting pillion. On seeing the police party, they got perplexed and tried to run away. After parking the scooty on the side of road, the girl threw a black colour polythene bag, which she was holding. The police on suspicion, surrounded them and both were apprehended. On asking, the girl disclosed her name to be Liya (petitioner in CRM-M-60721-2025) and the boy who was riding pillion disclosed his name to be Ajay Sharma (petitioner in CRM-M-37562- 2025). They were suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, search of the polythene being thrown by girl was carried out. On conducting the search of the girl, 257 grams of heroin was recovered. On conducting the search of Ajay Sharma an amount of Rs.3500/- was recovered. They failed to produce any license regarding possession of the same. Thus, FIR got registered and petitioner(s) were arrested on the spot. After registration of FIR, investigation commenced. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The complicity of the petitioner, namely, Jaswant Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-59760-2025) is surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused, Liya. Petitioner(s) have approached the learned Judge Special Court, Gurdaspur for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge Special Court, Gurdaspur declined the bail applications vide orders dated 14.05.2025, 25.06.2025 and 01.07.2025, respectively. The petitioner in CRM-M-59760-2025 has earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-34776-2025 and the same was not pressed vide order dated 11.07.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner(s) in CRM-M-37562- 2025 and CRM-M-60721-2025 are before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present petitions whereas petitioner in CRM-M-59760-2025 is before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present second petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-37562-2025 and CRM-M-60721-2025 have vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. They submit that that the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place and no independent witness has been joined and the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. They submit that even otherwise, the alleged recovery is of 257 grams of heroin including the weight of the polythene, thus, the alleged recovery is marginally above the commercial quantity. They further submit that petitioner(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top