Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 155 07.09.2023 Beas, Amritsar 21/29 of NDPS Act

¶1The pettoner incarcerated in the FIR captoned above had come up before this Court under Secton 483 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 5 of the bail petton, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegatons are taken from the reply filed by the State. On

07.09.2023, the police received a secret informaton that accused Kuldeep Singh and Gurdev Singh were selling heroin and even other descriptons were provided. Subsequently, the police was able to nab them and they claimed to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973 and recovered 850 grams of heroin from Gurdev Singh and 150 grams of heroin from Kuldeep Singh. A>er the arrest, Gurdev Singh suffered a disclosure statement and named one Gurjeet Singh, Jobandeep Singh as the other persons and one Patwari, who were involved in supplying of heroin to them and they purchased about 17 kg of heroin from them. A>er that, in additon to the earlier recovery from the other accused, the police had recovered 500 grams of heroin at the instance of the pettoner.

¶4The pettoner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

¶5The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the order/judgment. 1

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "Role of the pettoner

¶7That the pettoner was arrested on 08.09.2023 during the course of the investgaton. During his custodial interrogaton, the pettoner suffered a disclosure statement dated 08.09.2023, disclosing therein that the co-accused Jobandeep Singh was resident of his village, due to which they were having cordial relatonship between them and Amritpal Singh alias Bath, Balwinder Singh alias Binder and Abhayroop Singh were friends of the co-accused Jobandeep Singh and he also came in contact with the aforesaid persons and in March/April 2023, he and Jobandeep Singh started supplying heroin and he had supplied heroin to Gurdev Singh along with the co-accused Jobandeep Singh. He further disclosed that Amritpal Singh alias Bath, who was known to the co-accused Jobandeep Singh was having relatons with Pakistan based smugglers and Pakistan based smugglers used to supply heroin on asking of Amritpal Singh and Jobandeep Singh and Balwinder Singh used to pick the consignment of heroin from the border. He further disclosed that he had supplied two consignments of heroin to Abhayroop Singh in the area of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

¶8That a total of 500 grams of heroin from the Urban Cruiser Car No.PB02-ED-7749 was recovered at the instance of the pettoner in the presence of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division A7ari, Amritsar (Rural) pursuant to his disclosure statement, which was taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 08.09.2023." REASONING:

¶8The quantty allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The pettoner must satsfy the twin conditons set forth by the Legislature under Secton 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶9The pettoner is enttled to bail because for the same drug, and when the quantty involved was either more or closer to the quantty seized in the present FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: order/judgment. 2

¶10In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP

(Crl) 8557-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The pettoner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sectons 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegaton is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail applicaton was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year six months in jail. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the partes. Considering the quantty of the contraband artcles and the period of his incarceraton, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the pettoner.

¶11In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510-2024, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender a>er one year and six months of custody who possessed 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as follows: The pettoner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sectons 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegaton is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail applicaton of the pettoner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the pettoner. As per office report dated

13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent-State but no one has appeared for the State. Considering the period of incarceraton of the pettoner and the fact that the pettoner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the pettoner.

¶12As per the custody certficate dated 30.06.2025, the pettoner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year, 09 months and 17 days.

¶13The prolonged incarceraton, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Artcle 21 of the Consttuton and in such a situaton, the conditonal liberty must override the statutory embargo created under 1Secton 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act .

¶14Following the judicial precedent mentoned above, without commentng on the case's merits, and considering the pettoner's pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, absence of criminal antecedents relatng to drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceraton is not justfied at this stage. 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 order/judgment. 3 CONDITIONS:

¶15Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on bail in the FIR captoned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶16While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aMestng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶17This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶18The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶19Given the background of allegatons against the pettoner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitatng the accused would be one of the primary optons untl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiMal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricton is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancton]. Given the nature of the allegatons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pettoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuniton, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fi>een days of release from prison and inform the Investgator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pettoner shall be enttled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiMal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restrictng firearms would instll confidence in the victm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses order/judgment. 4

¶20The conditons mentoned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petton (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The bail conditons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditons that would result in the deprivaton of rights and libertes must be eschewed."

¶21In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the pettoner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the pettoner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶22This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quan#ty involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quan#ty, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancella#on of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the discre#on to cancel this bail.

¶23Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶24A certfied copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Pettoner can download the order from the Court's official web page and aMest it as a true copy. If needed, the aMestng officer can verify its authentcity online and use the downloaded copy to aMest bonds.

¶25Pe22on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

16.07.2025 Jyo2-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Pronounced on: 16.07.2025 Gurjit Singh ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ****