Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkit Singh Alias Meet vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
Malkit Singh @ Meet
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: February 16, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 16, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’
‘BNSS’) for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner,
petitioner in case bearing FIR No
No.208 dated 29.12.2024,
registered for the offences
offences punishable under Section
Sections 21-C/ 25/ 27-A/ 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘)
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’)
Act‘), at Police Station
STF (ANTF), SAS Nagar.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that co-accused,
accused, namely,
Pardhan Singh, Malkeet Singh @ Meet (petitioner herein),, and Gurpreet Singh
@ Gopi were apprehended on the basis of secret information received by the
police. Upon search, recovery of four packets containing 550 grams, 519 grams,
539 grams, and 543 grams of heroin was effected from co-accused,
accused, namely,
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
2
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi. Additionally, a .32 bore pistol along with three live
cartridges was recovered from co-accused, namely, Pardhan Singh.
Subsequently, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi led the police party to his residence,
where a further recovery of 543 grams of heroin and 20 live cartridges of .32
bore was effected. Thereafter, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, the police recovered 1 kilogram and 500 grams of
heroin, one .32 bore country-made pistol, five live cartridges, an electronic
weighing scale, and ₹3,05,000/- in cash alleged to be drug money from the
residence of Robinpreet Singh @ Rupa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is
in custody since 29.12.2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied
with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned
counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be
fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that earlier petition
for regular bail preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, by this
Court, vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-43280-2025. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more
than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition
by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature
and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. In
case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond
from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/
evidence. Learned State counsel has further submitted that petition in hand does
not meet the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and is, thus, liable to be
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
3
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
rejected on this score alone. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record
custody certificate dated 14.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on
record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper-
book as also the record produced before me.
6. Before delving further into the merits of the case, it would be
apposite to refer herein to the following case-law germane to the matter(s) in
issue:
i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Nakade,, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
versus Namdeo Ashruba NakadeNo.9792/2025, has held as under:
“8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse
has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-first
century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and
addiction have become pervasive. The United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its 2025 World Drug Report
that “As at 2023, some 316 million people worldwide had used
drugs in the past year, representing an increase over the past decade
that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher
prevalence of drug use.”
9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse
among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects individuals,
families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of
health including physical, social, political, cultural foundations, and
mental well-being. (See: “Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S,
Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The lingering menace of drug
abuse among the Indian youth – it’s time for action. Indian J
Community Med 2025;50:S9-12, published on 17th April, 2025”)
10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear dilemma
between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or sacrificing its
most valuable resource i.e. its young people. The extent of menace
of drug abuse has also been highlighted by this Court in the case of
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5
SCC 155 wherein this Court has observed as under:
“9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the
length and breadth of our country with the Central and every
State Government fighting against the menace of substance
abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse
is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe
grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use
Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever accessible drug market, the
consequences leave a generational Page 75 of 84 imprint on
public health and even national security. Article 47 of the
Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
4
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to
bring about prohibition of the consumption except for
medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which
are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to
address the root causes of this predicament and develop
effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s
younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to
substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace.
This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to
social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment,
spousal violence, and even property crime in a family.”
11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the
Respondent-accused was in custody for one year four months and
charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious
inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the
commercial quantity but the Respondent-accused allegedly got the
cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the
contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-
accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner.
Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has
been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years
rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has
been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.”
ii) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No(s).7768 of 2025, has held as under:
“15. At this stage, two features stand out. The High Court’s
conclusion that there is no material to show that the applicant had
any knowledge of the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived at
without discussion of the statements of the respondent and
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the
assertion that the respondent had placed the orders for import,
controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the overseas
supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The
High Court has not examined whether those circumstances, taken at
face value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie indicate
conscious control or involvement sufficient to attract the
presumption of culpable mental state indicated under Section 35 of
the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that
there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before
this Court includes the Union’s assertion that the respondent had
already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of
approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035
kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
5
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither
noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises,
recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that
the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged
incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a
finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief
and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the
material available. A conclusion of this nature, if returned without
addressing the prosecution’s assertions of operative control and
antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of
evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first
instance.”
iii) This Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus
State of Punjab, passed in CRM–M-33729
CRM 33729–2025
2025:PHHC:089161)) = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H4537; after relying
(2025:PHHC:089161
upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Union of India vs. Thamisharasi & Ors, 1995(4) SCC 190,
Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 (3) SCC 549,
Union of India vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007(4)
RCR(Criminal) 186, Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (13)
SCC 813, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 613, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, Narcotics Control Bureau vs.
Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon vs.
State of Gujarat, 1988(1) RCR(Criminal) 540, Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
2005(5) SCC 294, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vs. Vijay Sai
Reddy, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 252, Municipal Corporation of
Delhi vs. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another, 1987(4) SCC
497, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Unique
Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., and another, 1987(1) SCC 532,
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
6
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others, 2003(4) SCC
488, Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, 1958
SCC Online SC 30, Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Shri Gurudasmal and others 1970(1) SCC 633, Tinsukhia
Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, 1989(3) SCC 709 and
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, 2003(3)
SCC 57; has held, thus:
“14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following
postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under 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.
(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.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long 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.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are
in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS
or any other applicable extant law.
III. 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.
IV. 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 material,
including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of
adjudicating such bail plea.
(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.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
7
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
(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).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of 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 Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique
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.”
7. The petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2024 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 23.06.2025. Out of
total cited 25 prosecution witnesses, 01 has been examined and 01 has been
given up till date. The trial is underway. Indubitably, the petitioner is involved in
the FIR in question pertaining to commercial quantity of more than 04 kg. of
Heroin as per NDPS Act, 1985 along with firearms, live cartridges, an electronic
weighing scale, and substantial cash alleged to be drug money, which prima
facie indicates organized and illicit trafficking activity. The magnitude of the
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
8
CRM-
CRM-M-6936-
6936-2026
contraband recovered and the involvement of multiple accused reflect the
seriousness of the offence.
7.1. Apart from above, concededly, the earlier petition seeking grant of
regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.09.2025 by this Court. The
petition in hand does not disclose any further cause nay plausible cause, which
would warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail.
7.2. Hence, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case
in hand; especially the contraband alleged to be recovered being more than 4 kg.
Heroin; the petition in hand deserves to be dismissed.
8. Ordered accordingly.
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
February 16, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2026 00:36:14 :::
