Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 21 May, 2026
CRM-M-1102-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208 CRM-M-1102-2026
Date of decision: 21.05.2026
GURDEV SINGH @ SONU
......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This
petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.274 dated
31.10.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 23
[Section 29 added later on] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being in the backdrop of the fact that on 31.10.2025, the
officials of Border Security Force recovered a suspicious packet lying in the
agricultural fields in the border area. The above-mentioned packet was handed
over to the police.
3. According to prosecution in view of above-mentioned recovery,
the FIR was lodged and further investigation taken up. The prosecution has
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 2
further alleged that during the course of investigation on the basis of secret
information, to the effect that packet belonged to the petitioner, the petitioner
was taken into custody.
4. Heard.
5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no
recovery from the possession of petitioner had taken place, and that the only
evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner is his
own confessional statement, which was recorded when the petitioner was in
police custody. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the above-
mentioned statement is inadmissible in evidence, and that except the above-
mentioned statement, there is nothing on record to establish link between the
contraband and the petitioner.
6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned
arguments. According to learned State counsel, the quantity of contraband
recovered in the present case comes within the ambit of commercial quantity,
and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-
37 NDPS Act, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. It
has also been contented by learned State counsel that the petitioner does not
have clean antecedents as he has already faced prosecution in three other cases
including two cases under NDPS Act.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. As far as the principles with regard to grant of bail in a case
related to NDPS Act, where recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of
commercial quantity, are concerned, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 3
State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay
in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given
the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the Act.
9. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of
West Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on
14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha‘, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109,
extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a
period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time.
The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged
incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right
guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the
constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under
Section-37 of the NDPS Act.
10. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case
of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal
No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an
accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press
for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for
being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled
for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.
11. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 4
v. Central Bureau of Investigation‘ (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration
and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to
several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on
bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] would apply in such
cases.
12. In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’
Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial
quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded
the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a
period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.
13. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP
No.15699-2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West
Bengal‘ and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal
Appeal No.4872 of 2025.
14. In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West
Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the
possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-
a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three
months;
b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had
been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;
c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and
d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 5
In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial
compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.
15. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s
The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in
possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period
of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long
time.
16. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in
the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
i) the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six
months;
ii) nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;
iii) the only evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against
the petitioner, is the confessional statement of the petitioner,
which was recorded by the police when he was in custody. Thus,
without discovery of fact pertaining to present case or recovery of
any incriminating material, the above-mentioned statement is
inadmissible in evidence. Since nothing has been recovered
pursuant to above-mentioned statement, the above-mentioned
statement seems to be hit by Section-23 of ‘the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023’;
iv) nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of
petitioner;
v) the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore,
nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of
petitioner;
vi) the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 6
vii) the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve
any useful purpose;
viii) there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the
petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses;
ix) there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the
petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
17. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and another‘, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that
“a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of
innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found
guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus
has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is
another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect
of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is
that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a
prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have
been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of
bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,
occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an
accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 7
a case”.
18. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and Another‘ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the
abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in
criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs
on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative
sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to
rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal
principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not
punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the
contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave
injustice”.
19. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of
six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be
said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and
extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our
justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and
the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in
order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.
20. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1102-2026 8
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by
Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another“,
2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
21. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion
that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition
deserves to be allowed.
22. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to
be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be
subject to following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the
Court or to any other authority.
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in
address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
21.05.2026
vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.05.21 20:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
