Gagandeep Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
Case Details
CRM-M-25608-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25608-2025 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Pronounced on: 31.07.2025 Gagandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Shubham, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 1 02.01.2025 ANTF, Sector-11, Chandigarh 20, 21, 29 of NDPS Act and 111 of BNS 1.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. 3. As per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 02.01.2025, based on secret information, the Police seized 30 grams of heroin from the co-accused’s Aarti’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023. During the custodial interrogation, the co-accused named Gagan @ Goggi as the main supplier of the drugs. The said Gagan @ Goggi was also arrested on 17.01.2025 and 24.82 grams of heroin, 77.80 grams charas, some empty pouch reused contraband, 5 sharp edge knife, one dummy pistol, one electric weighing scale and mobile phone were recovered from him. During the custodial interrogation, he disclosed that he and Kiran purchased the drug substances from Delhi and Amritsar. On the basis of same, one Gagandeep s/o Satnam Singh was arrested with 50.61 grams of heroin and the petitioner was arrested with 20.40 grams of heroin. 4. 5. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-25608-2025 under Sections 19/24/27-A of NDPS Act. He further submits that he has no objection if the State files an application for cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act, pending against the petitioner. He contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to para 10 of the reply, which reads as follows: “Role of the petitioner 10. That on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Gagan @ Goggi accused/petitioner Gagandeep Singh S/o Satnam Singh apprehended on 19.01.2025 at around 1.00 am near Benson Marriage Palace, Jalandhar Bypass Road Ludhiana, Punjab and during the personal search of Gagandeep Singh S/o Satnam Singh suspected narcotic substances was recovered. Present petitioner was arrested at the spot with recovered substance i.e. 50.61 gram Heroin and is actively involved in the sale and purchase of the drugs and is spoiling the career/lives of the young generation by pushing them into the vicious cycle of drug abuse and addiction.” REASONING: 8. Dealing with this contraband is an offence under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 56 JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-25608-2025 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity Heroin ****** Diacetylmorphine < 5 Gram > 250 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821 (E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name 2(xvi)(d) ****** ****** Chemical Name 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts; Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage: Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation. 9. JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is non-commercial. Given this, the 3 CRM-M-25608-2025 rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes. 11. As per custody certificate dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 05 months and 19 days. 12. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner is behind bars from the last more than five months and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner, quantity is non-commercial, as such, he is entitled to bail. 13. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 14. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 15. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available)
Legal Reasoning
16. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 17. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-25608-2025 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. 18. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction 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 sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 19. The conditions mentioned 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 Petition (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 conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 20. In 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 petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 21. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5 CRM-M-25608-2025 22. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. 25. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 31.07.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.08.02 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 6