Harmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-31608-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-31608-2025 Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 25.09.2025 Harmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 15 27.02.2024 State Special 21/25/29 of NDPS Act and Operation Cell, 307 IPC Amritsar 1.
Facts
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. Per paragraph 18 of the bail petition and para 9E of the status report filed by the 2. State, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 27.02.2024 based on prior information, the Police laid naka and signaled the car in which petitioner along with driver Avtar Singh @ Sona and Gurcharan Singh were travelling. When police party asked them to come out, driver tried to run over the car on the police officials and when police party fired in air, in a perplexed condition vehicle the got off the road, co- accused of petitioner escaped and petitioner was arrested and in search of vehicle, police seized 500 grams of heroin from that car. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. 5. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. The petitioner's counsel 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. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 2 CRM-M-31608-2025 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. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING: 7. As per paragraph 9 of the reply, the name of the contraband is heroin, and its
Legal Reasoning
Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. 15. In 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 after one year and six months of custody who possessed 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as follows: The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. 16. In this case, offence u/s 307 IPC because of attempt of driver to run over the police party i.e. Avtar Singh @ Sona, as such, role of petitioner is on lower pedestrian. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, absence of criminal antecedents relating to drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 17. Given the 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, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000. 18. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5 6 CRM-M-31608-2025 19. 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) 20. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 21. 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, 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. 22. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, 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 society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 23. 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.” 24. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 6 7 CRM-M-31608-2025 (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.” 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 28. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 29. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are
Arguments
weight is 500 grams. 8. Dealing in 500 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Quantity detained Punishable U/s Quantity type Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine 500 Gram S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Commercial 200.00% 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. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) 56 Heroin Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 ****** Diacetylmorphine CRM-M-31608-2025 Small Quantity Commercial Quantity 3 < 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. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the 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. Para 7 of the reply reads as follows: ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-31608-2025 4 “7. That during the course of investigation on 09.09.2024, co accused Avtar Singh alias Sona was arrested with mobile phone Red MI alongwith SIM 98552xxxxx/98140xxxxx in this case. During the course of investigation, co accused Avtar Singh alias Sona disclosed that on 27.02.2024, he alongwith petitioner and Gurcharan Singh alias Goldy s/o Surinder Singh, r/o Mahal, Amritsar were boarded on Innova bearing registration No. PB 02 CR 3469 for the delivery of heroin. Accused Avtar Singh was driving the said Innova vehicle and at police nakka he was asked to stop by police official but he tried to run over the vehicle Innova over police party and fled away from the spot whereas petitioner Harmeet Singh was apprehended with consignment of heroin 500 Gms. Avtar Singh alias Sona revealed the identity of other co accused Gurcharan Singh who was accompanying with them on vehicle Innova bearing registration No. PB 02 CR 3469 for the delivery of heroin. Subsequently Gurcharan Singh was nominated as accused vide DDR No. 16 dated 14.09.2024, and efforts are being made for his arrest.” 11. Per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2025 the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year, 05 months & 28 days. Moreover, petitioner was only sitting in the car and car was being driven by co-accused Avtar Singh @ Sona. 12. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. 13. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent. 14. In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 8557-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year six months in jail. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties. 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 5 CRM-M-31608-2025
Decision
disposed of. 25.09.2025 anju rani (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.09.25 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 7