IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Bhupinder Singh @ Sonu --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ.

Present:- Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.118, dated 15.07.2024, under Section 15(C), 29 (added later on) of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that Police party while on patrolling on 15.07.2024, when they were going towards Behman Chowk and saw one person near a parked truck/trolla and was seen opening the back gate of the truck and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed started closing the gate in hurry, then on suspicion, apprehended the accused namely Sandeep Singh @ Kaka in possession of one truck/trolla bearing registration no. NL-01AB-0377 in the area of Behman Chowk. From the search of said truck 190 black bags and 20 white bags containing 41 quintals of poppy husk were recovered without any license or permit.

Thus, the FIR in question was registered and accused was arrested at the spot. During investigation, Sandeep Singh @ Kaka made a disclosure about the complicity of the present petitioner, who was also arrayed as an accused in the present case and was subsequently arrested on production warrants as he was already confined in jail in some other case, on 03.08.2024. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation challan was presented, charges were framed and trial has commenced. The petitioner approached the learned Special Court at Bathinda for grant of bail. However, on hearing the same and finding no merits, was declined by the learned Special Court at Bathinda on 22.08.2024. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition for grant of regular bail. Earlier also the present petitioner approached this Court for grant of regular bail but the same was declined vide order dated 29.10.2024.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that admittedly it was a chance recovery. It is submitted that recovery has been effected from co-accused Sandeep Singh @ Kaka, who was driver of the truck. He submits that petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which in itself is not an admissible evidence. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he also has three other cases, however, he is on bail in those cases. It is submitted that petitioner is behind bars for the last more than 1 ½ years, however, there is no material progress in the trial. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the above said case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-

“19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such