IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRM-M-363-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.04.2026 Sahilpreet Singh @ Sunny ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 109 dated 08.05.2025, registered under Sections 21(c), 23, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 25(8) and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (added later on)

at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the allegations, on 08.05.2025, co-accused Lovepreet Singh @ Love and Jagroop Singh were apprehended on the basis of a secret information. They were interrogated. Co-accused Lovepreet Singh suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement with the drug peddlers from Pakistan and got recovered 5 kgs. 23 grams of heroin, drug money to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/-, 07 illicit pistols of 30 bore along with 11 magazines and 40 live cartridges. He suffered another disclosure statement on 09.05.2025 on the basis of which the petitioner and Ajay Kumar @ Ajay were nominated as such additional accused on the allegations that they had been giving him money and heroin on the asking of one Raja and that out of the recovered pistols, three pistols were given to him by the present petitioner and co-accused Ajay Kumar. The petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2025. At the instance of the petitioner and co-accused Ajay Kumar, recovery of 102 grams of heroin and one Splendor bike was effected. Some other persons were also nominated in this case. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. A false recovery was planted upon him. He has clean antecedents. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner with the co-accused. Even otherwise, the quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from him does not fall under commercial quantity. He is in custody since long. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as out of total 25 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. 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 th