ANGREJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case Details
CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRM-M-27889-2025 Decided on : 1 8 .11.2025 ANGREJ SINGH . . . Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB 2) . . . Respondent(s) CRM-M- 38952-2025 HARPREET SINGH . . . Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s) 3) CRM-M- 52753-2025 JAGTAR SINGH . . . Petitioner(s) STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s) Versus 4) CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) HARWINDER SINGH . . . Petitioner(s) STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-38952-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025). Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-27889-2025). Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-52753-2025). Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 2 **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M- 38952-2025, CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025, as all the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. 2. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here- District Amritsar Police Station State Special Operation Cell under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) 12 09.02.2024 18, 25, 29 of NDPS Act Angrej Singh (petitioner in CRM-M- 27889-2025) Harpreet Singh (petitioner in CRM-M- 38952-2025) Jagtar Singh (petitioner in CRM-M- 52753-2025) Harwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M- 50769-2025) 2. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners contend that, as per the case of prosecution, police party received secret information that accused Angrej Singh and Harpreet Singh had procured a large consignment of opium from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which was to be supplied in the areas of Gurdaspur, Pathankot and Amritsar. It was further disclosed that the said accused had received the consignment through the LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 3 drivers of their truck bearing registration No.PB-06-Q-3392, namely Harwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh. It is submitted that, without waiting for any recovery of the alleged contraband, police proceeded to register the FIR under Sections 18, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Further submit that bare reading of the FIR does not indicate the stage, quantity or manner of recovery of opium or any other contraband. However, from the status report dated 12.11.2025, produced in the Court by learned State counsel in CRM-M-52753-2025 (pertaining to Jagtar Singh), it is revealed that 13 kilograms of opium was allegedly recovered from truck No.PB-06-Q-3392, owned by one Kashmir Singh s/o Surjit Singh, resident of Jhanjian Kalan, Batala (Gurdaspur). Status report is ordered to be taken on record, and Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file. 3. It is further stated in the status report that contraband was found concealed in the cabin of the truck, which was otherwise loaded with coal. During the investigation, it also surfaced that the recovered opium had earlier been transported in another truck, bearing registration No.PB-06-V-0877, which was found to be owned by accused Harpreet Singh. 4. Counsel for the respective petitioners further argue that each of the accused/petitioners has been shown to be arrested from the spot at the time of the alleged recovery from truck No.PB-06-Q-3392, and all of them have remained in custody for a period of more than one year and nine months. LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 4 5. Counsel for petitioner-Harpreet Singh (in CRM-M-38952- 2025), aged 32 years, submits that he has no previous involvement in offences under the NDPS Act, and prosecution has yet to establish his conscious possession or any exclusive knowledge of the contraband. Similarly, counsel for petitioner-Angrej Singh (in CRM-M- 27889-2025), aged 44 years, submits that no criminal case under the NDPS Act has ever been registered against him in the past. Counsel for petitioner-Jagtar Singh (in CRM-M-52753- 2025), aged 48 years, also asserts that he has no antecedents relating to the NDPS Act. Likewise, counsel for petitioner-Harwinder Singh (in CRM- M-50769-2025), aged 32 years, submits that he too has never been involved in any such offence. 6. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respective petitioners pray for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in the present case. 7. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificates dated 17.11.2025 in Court today, which are taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submits that ample evidence exists against all the accused/petitioners. It is contended that all LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 5 the petitioners were in constant contact with one another, which has been duly verified through their Call Detail Records, reflecting frequent telephonic communication among them. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the period already undergone by the petitioners in custody, nor the fact that none of them has been previously involved in any similar offence under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that, out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined, so far. 9. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully examined the record available. 10. Considering the circumstances and facts noticed here above, and keeping in view the slow pace at which the trial is progressing, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners cannot be subjected to prolonged incarceration without the trial advancing at the required pace. The question of whether each of the petitioners was in conscious possession of the contraband or not, is still to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In view of the totality of circumstances, nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the factors noted here above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to all the petitioners in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions is allowed. Petitioners namely Angrej Singh (in CRM-M-27889-2025), Harwinder Singh (in CRM-M-50769-2025), Jagtar Singh (in CRM-M- LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-27889-2025, CRM-M-38952-2025 CRM-M-52753-2025 and CRM-M-50769-2025 (O&M) 6 52753-2025) and Harpreet Singh (in CRM-M-38952-2025), are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 12. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 13. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 14. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 15. 16.
Decision
Petitions stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. 18.11.2025 Lavisha (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO YES/NO Whether Reportable: LAVISHA 2025.11.18 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh