3.9.2025 Shubham Singh @ Shibu ………… v. CORAM: HON'BLE
Case Details
CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 ***** CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 Date of decision : 3.9.2025 Shubham Singh @ Shibu ………….Petitioner State of Punjab …….Respondent Versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate and
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.141 dated 1.7.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, involving 17.04 grams of heroin and Rs.1500/- as drug money allegedly recovered from the petitioner, when she was apprehended by the police at about 7:00–8:00 pm on 1.7.2025, near bridge over drain at the outskirt of village Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -2- Chhina. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with. Learned counsel has further iterated that the contraband is non-commercial in nature and it is only on account of alleged recovery of drug money of Rs.1500/- from the petitioner that the police has sought to invoke provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, so as to debar the petitioner from securing bail. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, she does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 2.9.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 1.7.2025 and is in continuous custody since then; culmination of the investigation as also the trial emanating therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time. At this juncture, it is prima facie coming forth from the case put forth by the prosecution that alleged recovery from the co-accused is 17.04 grams of Heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Further, the invocation of Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -3- Section 27A of NDPS Act is on account of alleged recovery of Rs. 1500/- shown to be as drug money from the petitioner, but the basis thereof is confessional statement of the petitioner. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 7. In the factual milieu of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that fetters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been met with so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It would be apposite to refer a judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161); the relevant whereof reads thus: As a sequitur to above-said rumination, “14. postulates emerge: (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under (I) NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act. following the (ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc. is sought The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into (iii) long oblivion when bail incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant. for on account of Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -4- are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. III. IV. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant the including case-dairy, exclusively material, limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. for (ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. (iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea. V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’: (i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant. (ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future. (iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -5- exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under its own unique Section 37 (ibid) as every case has facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.” 8. As per custody certificate dated 2.9.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about 2 months & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change her cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.47824 of 2025 -6- every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that she has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after her being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of her affidavit or otherwise, the State to move, forthwith, for cancellation of her bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. is mandated 10. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 3.9.2025 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2025.09.03 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document