IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 CRM-M-36496-2025 Sukhwinder Singh @ Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 27.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shifali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.59 dated 13.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

2. As per the prosecution version, on receipt of a specific and credible secret information, ASI Balwinder Singh along with the police party held barricading at bridge drain, Kot Ise Khan. The petitioner along with co-accused Satnam Singh @ Nishan Singh was allegedly apprehended while coming on foot. Upon seeing the police party, both the accused persons allegedly threw polythene packets taken out from their pockets. On checking, 258 grams of heroin was recovered from the polythene allegedly thrown by the petitioner (herein) whereas 195 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the co-accused namely Satnam Singh @ Nishan Singh.

According, the FIR was registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act after sending the ruqa to the police station. The petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2025 and has remained in custody since then. The investigation was conducted and the final report has already stands presented before the Court below.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the alleged recovery is planted and is the result of previous enmity between the petitioner and the co-accused. Furthermore, the alleged recovery being marginally above the commercial quantity and not from the possession of the petitioner and hence the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the instant case. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. According to learned senior counsel, the separate recoveries attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused cannot be clubbed to bring the case within the ambit of heavy commercial quantity. Learned counsel has emphasized that the prosecution case rests solely on suspicion as no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. According to learned senior counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 13.04.2025 and the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. In such circumstances, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose particularly when the alleged recovery of contraband is not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS do not apply. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involve