05.2026 GURIQBAL SINGH GURIQBAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB STATE

Judgment

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 03.03.2025 under Sections 22- t Police Station Gate C/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gate -C/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered a Hakima, District Amritsar. Hakima, District Amritsar.

Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that Brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they on 03.03.2025, when the police party was on patrolling duty, they apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recovered apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recover apprehended the petitioner on suspicion and, during checking, recover 1,000 intoxicant tablets from him. 1,000 intoxicant tablets from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and that the entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory entire story is concocted and manipulated. He contends that the mandatory ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the ovisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 18588 of 2026 CRM-M-18588 of 2026 -2- alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness alleged search and seizure. He further contends that no independent witness - was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non- was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. He argued that there was non PS Act, as no offer was given to the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as no offer was given to the PS Act, as no offer was given to the compliance with Section 50 of the ND petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to petitioner during the personal search and no Gazetted Officer was called to the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, the spot. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, tnesses, charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution witnesses, charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution wi charges have been framed, and there are total of 21 prosecution wi out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the out of whom only one has been examined so far. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered petitioner has clean antecedents and that nothing more is to be recovered . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since from him. He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since . He further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since

03.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial will take a considerable 03.03.2025 and long time n of the trial will take a considerable long time since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody since the petitioner has already suffered the agony of prolonged custody . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the during trial. Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the . Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of bail. petitioner be granted the concession of bail.

4. State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and Learned State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and State Counsel has filed the custody certificate and status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the status report in the matter, which are taken on record. Relying upon the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of petitioner is serious in bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in bail by submitting that the offence committed by the bail by submitting that the offence committed by the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the nature and that the recovered contraband in the present case falls within the commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS commercial quantity category. Hence, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is Act operates. He argues that, as far as compliance with Section 50 is , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme concerned, the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme , the present case pertains to a chance recovery, and the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, Court has time and again reiterated that, in cases of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed. prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.22 18.09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 18588 of 2026 CRM-M-18588 of 2026 -3- The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of The recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of e rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS e rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS commercial quantity and, therefore, th The contention raised by learned counsel for the Act are clearly attracted. The contention raised by learned counsel for the The contention raised by learned counsel for the Act are clearly attracted. compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act petitioner regarding alleged non of the does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix of the does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix does not merit acceptance, particularly in view of the factual matrix present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine fact that the recovery in the instant matter was effected during routine patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further patrolling and was, therefore, a case of chance recovery. The record further and was recovered from a polythene bag and not reveals that the contraband was recovered from a polythene bag and not and was recovered from a polythene bag and not reveals that the contrab from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated from the personal search of the petitioner in the strict sense contemplated Once it is established that the recovery under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Once it is established that the recovery Once it is established that the recovery under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. ument advanced on was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal argument advanced on was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal arg was incidental and accidental in nature, the principal arg behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the behalf of the petitioner loses its significance. It is well settled that the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act are attracted only in cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance cases involving personal search of the accused and not in cases of chance n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench recovery. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench n this regard, reliance can be placed upon the Constitution Bench State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in