IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

236 CRM-M-54731-2025 Date of Decision : 09.02.2026 GURBINDER SINGH ALIAS JOBAN ALIAS FAUJI ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.72 dated 15.09.2024 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 21-C, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at Police Station Verka, Amritsar, has prayed for grant of bail.

2. Relevant facts emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

On 15.09.2024, Police team headed by Inspector Amanjot Kaur, SHO, Police Station Verka, Amritsar, was on patrolling duty, whey they saw a person coming from the opposite direction, who on seeing the police party tried to turn away. But due to sharp reflexes of police officials, they were able to apprehend him. He introduced himself as Gurbinder Singh @ Joban @ Fauji (present petitioner) After statutory formalities were complied with, petitioner was searched and from his personal possession 499 grams of ‘heroin’

(Commercial Quantity) was recovered.

During interrogation, he confessed to his involvement and disclosed that on the directions of one Anmol, s/o Harjit Singh, he (P) had supplied heroin to one Dilpreet Singh, so/ Daler Singh.

3. Petitioner-accused, moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The same was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2025. Aggrieved of which, present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Police team did not comply with the mandatory statutory provisions. Further, despite the fact that alleged recovery was effected from busy public place, but no efforts were made by IO to join any independent person as a ‘witness’ to the case proceedings, neither any cogent reason is forthcoming for this procedural lapse.

Continuing further, learned counsel submits that on completion of investigation, challan was filed 05.03.2025 and though charges have been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined till date, thus, likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. When appreciated in the light of factual scenario of the case and submissions advanced hereinabove, further incarceration of petitioner, who is not involved in any other case of like nature, would not serve any useful purpose as the same would be violative of his Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel contends that petitioner, who has been in custody since 15.09.2024, thus, deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour by extending him the concession of bail. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.

5. Status report dated 08.02.2026 by way of an affidavit of Mr. Anubhav Jain, Assistant Commissioner of Police, East, Amritsar, has been placed on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that ‘Commercial Quantity’ of contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that even the past antecedents of petitioner are far from satisfactory, as he is also involved in one other criminal case (FIR No.106 dated 28.05.2023, u/s 160, 148, 149, 295-A IPC), thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not involved in this offence or that he is not likely to commit the offence again, if extended the concession of bail. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7. Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein case t