Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-28411-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-28411-2025 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Pronounced on: 24.07.2025 Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Rahul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 130 10.08.2021 STF, SAS Nagar, 21/23/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Mohali and 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC 1. 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. Per paragraph 26 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 08.07.2025, accused has no criminal history. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply dated 08.07.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows:- the “That on 10.08.2021, Sh. Vavinder Kumar, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Border Range, District Amritsar was present in his office then a secret informer came to him and informed that Gurmeet Singh (petitioner) has been involved in the smuggling of Heroin since long time and he has close contacts with the heroin smugglers of Pakistan and he smuggles heavy quantity of heroin from Pakistan to various places in Punjab. That few days prior Gurmeet Singh was in touch with Pakistani smugglers and was setting a deal of heroin and now he had finalized the deal with Pakistani heroin smugglers and as per this deal, the Pakistani dealers will send a huge consignment of heroin to the petitioner on the intervening night of 09/10.08.2021 via BOP 1 ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-28411-2025 2 Muhawa over the border fencing and if strict checking is done at BOP Muhawa then, Pakistani heroin smugglers can be apprehended along with huge quantity of heroin and the petitioner can also be apprehended along with his Pakistani associates who will be sitting or hidden somewhere near BOP to receive the consignment of heroin. The information being reliable and trustworthy, the present FIR No. 130 (supra) was registered. 6. That after the registration of the FIR, the police party went to BOP Muhawa in the night of 09-10.08.2021 as per the information by the secret informer, but the operation was not successful as no recovery got affected from the place nor the petitioner was found present in the area. Thereafter, the raid again got unsuccessful on 18-19.08.2021. On 23.05.2022, SI Vinod Sharma was deputed under the supervisory of Sh. Vavinder Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Border Range, District Amritsar and during the course of investigation in the present case on 25.05.2022, a secret informer gave secret information that the petitioner is smuggling a huge consignment of heroin in the area of BOP Bharowal and thereafter, SI Vinod Sharma along with other police officials reached at BOP Bharowal and informed the Officials of BSF 144 Battalion and then at about 11:00 PM a drone was found coming from Pakistan side and the firing was brought in the force by BSF then the drone threw some heavy material and went back to Pakistan side and during the search of the field in the day light, 02 packets containing heroin were got recovered and on measuring them on electronic weighing scale, it came out to be 01 kg 120 gm each packet of heroin and in this regard, total 02 kg 240 gm of Heroin was recovered.” 4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC 1973. 5. Petitioner’s counsel made the following arguments:- i) that there are no call details connecting the petitioner with the crime. ii) that no transactions are mentioned to establish his link. iii) that petitioner was not found at the spot. iv) non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. v) that FIR was registered on 10.08.2021 and recovery from the petitioner shown in 2024. 6. Petitioner’s counsel further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to following portion of the reply, which reads as 8. follows: ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh “Role of the petitioner 2 CRM-M-28411-2025 That the petitioner has smuggled the aforesaid huge quantity of heroin across the border from Pakistani smugglers. Furthe he also tried to flee the country on the basis of forged passport as detailed above.” 3 REASONING 9. FIR was registered in 2021 and police was able to recover 2 kg 240 gram heroin. After investigation, police found the involvement of petitioner and he was joined into investigation and he got recovered 690 gram heroin on 31.03.2024, as such massive recovery effected from the petitioner. Ground raised by the petitioner as reproduced in para No.5 above, are not enough to discharge the burden placed by the legislature u/s 37 of NDPS Act upon the petitioner. Quantity involved is 8 times the commercial quantity and the drug is heroin which cannot be compared with other medicinal drugs, cough syrups, poppy straw, Ganja and charas etc. As such, rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act apply in this case 10. Per the custody certificate dated 08.07.2025, petitioner’s custody in this FIR is 01 year & 03 months, but considering the massive quantity of heroin, petitioner is not entitled to bail. Considering that delay may be a ground for an accused to claim bail, the trial Courts are requested to expedite the cases of smuggling of heroin from Pakistan border and the present is one such case. 11. An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome. The police had recovered commercial quantity of heroin from the vehicle in which petitioner was found present. Petitioner did not point out any reason about his lack of knowledge or the reasons that he was not in possession of such heroin. Since the quantity involved is commercial, as such, rigors of Section 37 come into operation and the burden shifts on the petitioner, which he did not discharge. 12. Section 371 of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on 1 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-28411-2025 bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offense punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable 4 satisfaction of its rigors. 13. The State’s Counsel argues that a plain reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to curb the drug menace. It is further to be noticed that the provisions are couched in negative language, meaning that to grant bail, the Court needs to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense. The burden of proof is also on the petitioner to satisfy the Court about his non-involvement in the case. While interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court must be guided by the objective sought to be achieved by putting these stringent conditions. 14. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more exist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling them to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. If either of these conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense, the Court still cannot give a finding on the assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. 15. 16. The petitioner’s arguments did not point toward any material contradictions. The submissions made above and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation reveals sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-28411-2025 crime; thus, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the petitioner, the State, or the other accused. 5 17. Per the custody certificate dated 08.07.2025, the petitioner's custody is 01 year & 03 months which cannot be considered prolonged. 18. In Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, decided on 21 Oct 2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2109, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [4]. According to the prosecution, contraband material weighing about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain. During the course of investigation, it was found that the motor vehicle was recorded in the name of Md. Nizam Uddin who had executed a sale letter and handed over the custody of the vehicle to accused Md. Abdul Hai and that accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed by accused Md. Abdul Hai and that contraband material in question was to be handed over to accused-Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop. [5]. The High Court by its order which is presently under challenge, directed release of both the accused as stated above on bail after they had undergone custody to the tune of about a year. Questioning grant of relief to said accused, the instant appeals have been preferred. [7]. What emerges from the record is that large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain. Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused is a question.
Legal Reasoning
[8]. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu . In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta , the rigour of law lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. [9]. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith. [10]. We have been given to understand that the charge-sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, we direct the Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order. 19. In Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha, decided on 10 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl.) 8198- ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-28411-2025 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, 6 The petitioners are in custody since 28th May, 2022 for alleged commission of alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the FIR allegation, 125.3 kg. of “Ganja” was recovered from the petitioners. [3]. It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and that three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. [4]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third prosecution witness was examined as far back as on 28th January, 2024 and since then, no other prosecution witness has been examined. There is, however, no such averment in the petition. [5]. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that every endeavor shall be made on behalf of the prosecution to have all the witnesses examined by the end of this year. [6]. The trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial and give its decision as early as possible, in accordance with law. [7]. We, however, do not see any reason to interfere the impugned judgment and order at this stage; however, it is clarified that in the event the trial is not completed by the end of this year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the trial court. 20. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 22.
Decision
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 6