Dismissed¶6

Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025CRM-M/15389/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M); Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab; regular bail under S.483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; FIR No. 55 dated 11.05.2024, P.S. Sultanwind, Amritsar; Sections 21(C) and 29 NDPS Act; 255 grams heroin; implication via co-accused disclosure statements; Whatsapp calls from jail; custody since 03.11.2024; challan 21.11.2024; criminal antecedents (one conviction, five trials); apprehension of absconding/re-offending; bail dismissed on 11.08.2025 by Manisha Batra, J.; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

In view of the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents, the quantum of sentence the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of regular bail at this stage. ¶6

Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 55 dated 11.05.2024 under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, deserves to be granted regular bail during the pendency of trial.

¶1

Court's answer

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The apprehension expressed by the State that if released on bail the petitioner may abscond or indulge in similar offences cannot be stated to be unfounded.

¶6

Key takeaways

As per the status report, the petitioner stands convicted in one similar case and is facing trial in five other cases of similar nature.ratio¶6
The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.), 11.08.2025 — Regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 by Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu in FIR No. 55 dated 11.05.2024, Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar, under Sections 21(C) and 29 NDPS Act, arising out of recovery of 255 grams of heroin from co-accused Tanveer Singh @ Tannu. Petitioner, in custody since 03.11.2024 on production warrant after nomination on co-accused disclosures, was alleged to have indulged in selling heroin through Whatsapp calls while lodged in jail; challan stood filed on 21.11.2024. Holding the allegations grave, noting the petitioner's conviction in one similar case and trial in five others, that the apprehension of absconding or indulging in similar offences was not unfounded, and that no undue delay in trial was shown, the Court declined regular bail at this stage and dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail decision and were not an expression of opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

335

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.08.2025

¶6

Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶12

Present:Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 55 dated 11.05.2024, registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar.

¶16

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 11.05.2024, co-accused Tanveer Singh @ Tannu was apprehended by a police party headed by SI Prahlad Singh and recovery of 255 grams of heroin was effected from him. During the course of investigation, the above named co-accused disclosed that one Gubakshish Singh and himself were the residents of the same village and were involved in selling heroin. It was further disclosed that cousin brother of Gubakshish Singh, namely Mannu, who was popularly known by the name of ‘Wadda

¶17

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

Veer’, was lodged in jail at Goindwal Sahib and he used to get them supplied heroin from some unknown person. The recovered contraband was also got supplied by aforesaid Mannu @ Wadda Veer and he was being paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for supply and receipt of heroin. On the basis of the same, Gubakshish Singh was nominated in the present case and was arrested on 29.05.2024. Co-accused Mannu @ Manpreet Singh was brought on production warrant on 03.06.2024 and on interrogation, he disclosed that he used to get heroin smuggled through Gubakshish Singh, Tanveer Singh and Nishan Singh @ Scooter. Accordingly, Nishan Singh @ Scooter was also nominated in this case and was arrested on 05.06.2024. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that his cousin Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu i.e. the present petitioner, who was lodged in jail, was involved in selling heroin by making Whatsapp calls on his mobile number. Accordingly, the petitioner was named as a co-accused in this case and was taken into custody by way of production warrant on 03.11.2024. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court on 21.11.2024 and presently, the petitioner along with co-accused facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither named in the FIR nor was found present at the spot. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. No subsequent recovery has been effected from him. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since

¶22

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

03.11.2024. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

¶26

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he can abscond or indulge in similar offences. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

¶28

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the above named co-accused. The allegations against him are that he was indulged in selling heroin by making Whatsapp calls while sitting in jail. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature. A perusal of the status report reveals that he has been convicted in one similar case and is facing trial in five other cases of similar nature. In view thereof, the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences, cannot be stated to be unfounded. The trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-15389-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶33

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶34

11.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE

¶35

Waseem Ansari

¶36

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶37

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovepreet Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajal Rassewatt Vs State of Haryana

Jatin Bhatia Vs State of Haryana

Habib Mohammad and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

M/S Kumar Traders Vs Sandeep Midda

Jaspal Singh @ Jassa Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Vs Babita