Dismissed¶26

Gurmesh Singh Alias Babbu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2025CRM-M/16998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; NDPS Act Sections 21 and 29; 338 grams heroin commercial quantity; rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act; Section 483 BNSS 2023 second bail petition; FIR No. 82 dated 08.09.2024, Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Manisha Batra J.; CRM-M-16998-2025 (O&M); petitioner Gurmesh Singh @ Babbu in custody since 08.09.2024; challan filed and trial commenced; co-accused Surinder Singh absconded; car DL-3C-BC-0303; earlier petition CRM-M-7962-2025 withdrawn 18.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

The recovered quantity of contraband (338 grams of heroin) obviously falls under commercial quantity; hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the bail consideration. ¶26

Gurmesh Singh Alias Babbu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated in FIR No. 82 dated 08.09.2024 (Sections 21 and 29, NDPS Act, Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka) after recovery of 338 grams of heroin, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Keeping in view the commercial quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which conviction may entail, completion of investigation and commencement of trial with nothing on record showing undue delay, and the State counsel's apprehension that the petitioner may abscond or indulge in similar offences, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of regular bail at this stage; accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The recovered quantity of contraband (338 grams of heroin) obviously falls under commercial quantity; hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the bail consideration.

¶26

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act, 1985 (Ss. 21, 29) — Regular bail — Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Second bail petition; earlier petition CRM-M-7962-2025 dismissed as withdrawn on 18.02.2025 — 338 grams of heroin recovered from car DL-3C-BC-0303 in which petitioner sat on the co-driver seat; car belonged to co-accused Surinder Singh, who escaped — Recovered quantity is commercial quantity, attracting the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act — Investigation complete, challan filed, trial commenced with nothing on record showing undue delay; petitioner in custody since 08.09.2024 — State's apprehension of absconding or similar offences not unfounded at this stage — Held: petitioner does not deserve regular bail at this stage; petition dismissed — Observations confined to disposal of the bail petition and not an expression of opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-16998-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

CRM-M-16998-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 29.07.2025 Pronounced on : 04.08.2025

¶5

Gurmesh Singh @ Babbu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present:Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶14

The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in FIR No. 82 dated 08.09.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka. The previous petition, bearing number CRM-M-7962-2025 , was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.02.2025.

¶15

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 08.09.2024, the petitioner and co-accused Surinder Singh were coming in a car bearing registration number DL-3C-BC-0303. A police party headed by ASI Iqbal Singh was on patrolling duty. A barricade was laid by the police party. It noticed the car of the petitioner coming from the side of Fazilka. The police gave signal to the driver-Surinder Singh to stop the car, on which, he stopped the car at some distance and ran away. However, the

¶16

Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-16998-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

petitioner, who was sitting on the co-driver seat, was apprehended by the police party. On conducting search of the car, recovery of 338 grams of heroin was effected. The petitioner was formally arrested at the spot. During investigation, it was found that the aforesaid car belonged to co-accused Surinder Singh. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the coaccused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the car belonged to co-accused Surinder Singh and the petitioner had gone to watch a cricket match with him. He was not at all aware about the possessions of the co-accused. The petitioner has made several representations to the higher police authorities and has filed a petition before this Court seeking impartial investigation in the case. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2024. 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.

¶21

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he can abscond or indulge in similar offences. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-16998-2025 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended by the police party on 08.09.2024 and recovery of 338 grams is alleged to have been effected from the car, in which he was travelling with co-accused Surinder Singh, who succeeded in running away from the spot. The said quantity of the contraband obviously falls under commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted in this case. Investigation stands completed and challan has been filed. Trial has commenced. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences can also not be stated to be unfounded at this stage. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, 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 petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶27

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.

¶28

04.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶29

Parveen Sharma 2025.08.05 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmesh Singh Alias Babbu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmesh Singh Alias Babbu 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

Dixit Vs State of Haryana

Dalvir Singh Alias Soni Vs State of Punjab

Yashpal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mewa Singh Vs Amrinder Singh @ Aminder Singh

Mewa Singh Vs Amrinder Singh @ Aminder Singh

Ankit Tyagi Alias Ankit Vs Ramdas