IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 2^nd April, 2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 04 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 21(c), 27-A, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that the present petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender in a case bearing FIR No. 37 dated 18.02.2019 registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Tarsika. On 06.01.2024, a police party conducted raid at his house for the purpose of apprehending him. Navdeep Singh, brother-in-

law of the petitioner, had met there and disclosed that the petitioner mostly used to live in the house of his friend Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, son of Kuldeep Singh. On receipt of this information, the police party had reached that the house of the above-named friend of the petitioner. On reaching there, the petitioner was found going from there on a motor bike. On noticing the police officials, he threw his bike and fled inside the house of his friend. He was apprehended. On conducting search, 2 kgs of heroin and currency notes of Rs. 1,75,000/- were recovered from the bag which was in possession of the petitioner. Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody for a period of over two years. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as none out of 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. He is on bail in another case as registered against him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition. While placing on record custody certificate of the petitioner, it is argued by him that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is involved in one more case and has been declared proclaimed offender in that case. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case.

Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.

8. In the instant case, contraband of commercial qua