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

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ROSHANDEEP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



##PAGE1##

210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-54060-2025

Date of Decision: 30.01.2026

ROSHANDEEP SINGH

…Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present : Mr. Laghuinder Sekhon, Advocate

and Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Surinderjit Singh Nahar, A.A.G., Punjab.

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of the

Bharartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in case FIR No.45 dated 01.03.2025, registered under

Sections 21-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Kotkapura,

District Faridkot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present

petitioner has been nominated on disclosure statement of the co-accused,

which is inadmissible in evidence; except the disclosure statement, there is

no other evidence against the present petitioner; petitioner has been in

custody since 14.06.2025; challan has been filed and charges have been

framed on 10.09.2025, and hence no useful purpose will be served by further

keeping the petitioner in custody. In support of his contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2026 20:55:59 :::

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-54060-2025 2

Court in Shince Babu vs The State of Kerala and another (Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 16642/2023) decided on 21.02.2024 as well as

Mahendra vs The State of Rajasthan Crl. No(s).2599/2024 decided on

10.07.2024.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the present case pertains to

recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, i.e. 262 grams of Heroine,

hence attracting the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act; petitioner has been

nominated as an accused being the supplier of the recovered contraband; as

per the separate disclosure statements of both accused, the recovered heroine

was part of consignment of 300 grams of Heroine which was supplied by

present petitioner to the co-accused. In the disclosure statement of co-

accused Manjit Singh, a categorical attribution has been made against the

petitioner, that the co-accused along with his wife indulged in sale of Heroin

supplied by the present petitioner, and owed a sum of rupees nine lakh to the

petitioner; upon his release on bail on 13.02.2025, he (co-accused Manjit

Singh) again came in contact with present petitioner, who told him that the

co-accused Manjit Singh could return the sum due after selling Heroine

supplied by present petitioner; accordingly, present petitioner supplied a

consignment of 300 grams of Heroin, and out of the same consignment, 262

grams of Heroine was recovered in the present case. Learned State counsel

further apprised the Court that petitioner does not have clean and clear

antecedents, as he is involved in nine more cases, out of which three cases

are under NDPS Act; trial on-going and the charges have already been

framed in this case. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition seeking

regular bail to the petitioner.

4. Heard.

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2026 20:56:00 :::

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-54060-2025 3

5. Petitioner has sought to rely on ratio of law held in Shince

Babu vs The State of Kerala and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s) 16642/2023) decided on 21.02.2024 as well as Mahendra vs The

State of Rajasthan Crl. No(s).2599/2024 decided on 10.07.2024. However,

this Court finds that facts of both the above-stated cases are distinguishable

from the case of present petitioner, as one of the primary considerations for

the grant of bail was clean antecedents. Contrastingly, present petitioner

does not have clean antecedents, as he has multiple criminal cases lodged

against him, out of which, three are under N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, the present

petitioner’s case cannot derive any benefit from the above-cited judgements.

6. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival

contentions, it emerges that a commercial quantity of contraband, namely

262 grams of Heroine, has been recovered,

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top