Dismissed¶¶24

Jagtar Singh Alias Malli v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2025CRM-M/1766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; NDPS Section 37 rigors; commercial quantity; 65 loose Etizolam tablets; FIR No. 167/03.08.2023; Section 22 NDPS; P.S. Dharamkot, Distt. Moga; second petition after CRM-M-16156-2024 withdrawn 29.05.2024; parity with co-accused Baljit Singh (CRM-M-13295-2024) rejected; custody since 03.08.2023; involved in 04 other NDPS FIRs; false implication plea not entertained at bail stage; petition dismissed; Manisha Batra, J.; 11.03.2025; CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

The quantity of contraband (65 loose tablets of Etizolam) allegedly recovered from the petitioner falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. ¶¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail in FIR No. 167 dated 03.08.2023 under Section 22 NDPS Act, where the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are attracted. +2 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The quantity of contraband (65 loose tablets of Etizolam) allegedly recovered from the petitioner falls within the ambit of commercial quantity.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the present case, the petitioner is shown to be involved in 04 other FIRs of similar nature under the NDPS Act.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are attracted against the petitioner, as there is nothing on record to show that he did not commit the subject crime or that, if released on bail, he would not commit similar offences.ratio¶¶24
Points regarding the petitioner's false implication could not be looked into by this Court at the stage of deciding a petition for grant of bail.ratio¶¶24
The petitioner's case is not at par with that of co-accused Baljit Singh: the co-accused was nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement, whereas the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and the contraband was recovered from him; the parity ground therefore fails.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J., oral) — CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M), decided 11.03.2025: Second regular-bail petition of Jagtar Singh @ Malli, arraigned in FIR No. 167 dated 03.08.2023, Section 22 NDPS Act, P.S. Dharamkot, Distt. Moga; 65 loose tablets of Etizolam recovered on his apprehension by a party headed by ASI Raghvinder Prashad (commercial quantity); earlier petition CRM-M-16156-2024 withdrawn on 29.05.2024; in custody since 03.08.2023; challan presented, trial pending. Held: (i) rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted — recovery is of commercial quantity and petitioner shown involved in 04 other similar NDPS FIRs, with nothing on record to show he did not commit the crime or would not repeat it; (ii) parity with co-accused Baljit Singh (bailed in CRM-M-13295-2024) rejected — co-accused nominated on disclosure statement, petitioner apprehended at the spot with recovery; (iii) period of incarceration by itself, nor trial delay alone or coupled with it, suffices for enlargement given the gravity of offence; (iv) false-implication plea not examinable at bail stage. Petition dismissed; observations confined to the bail decision, no opinion expressed on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

228

¶5

CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.03.2025

¶6

Jagtar Singh @ Malli ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present:Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, A d vocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Ad v ocate General, Punjab.

¶12

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶13

The instant one is the secon d petition that has been filed b y the petitioner seeking regular bail in case bea r ing FIR No. 167 dated 03.08.2 0 23, registered under Section 22 of the N arcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance s Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS A ct’) at Police Station Dhara m kot, District M oga. The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-16156-2024 , was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2024.

¶14

Brief facts of the case releva n t for the purpose of disposal o f this petition a r e that on 03.08.2023, the petit i oner was apprehended by a p o lice party hea d ed by ASI Raghvinder Prashad and recovery of 65 loose table t s of Etizolam w as effected from him. Since h e could not produce any perm i t or licence to keep in his possession the sai d drugs, he was formally arrest e d at the spot. A fter completion of necessary investigation and usual formal i ties, challan w a s presented in the Court and p r esently, the petitioner is facing trial for comm i ssion of aforesaid mentioned of f ences.

¶15

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.12 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the peti t ioner has argued that the petiti o ner has been f alsely implicated in this case. N o recovery was effected from h im. The contr a band allegedly recovered fro m the petitioner was in fact pla n ted upon him. The police had grudges against him and the false implication o f the petitioner i s evident from the fact that at t h e instance of the same Investig a ting Officer i. e . ASI Raghvinder Prashad, on e more FIR bearing No. 122 d ated 14.06.202 3 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act had been registered against th e petitioner. Even the place of o ccurrence alleged in both the s ame FIRs is th e same. Even otherwise, investi g ation has since been completed and challan h a s been presented. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2023. No useful purpose would be se r ved by keepin g him in custody anymore. Co-a c cused Baljit Singh has already b een granted c o ncession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 20.03. 2 024 passed in CRM-M-13295-2024 . On the g rounds of parity, the petitione r too deserves t h e same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserv e s to be allowe d .

¶19

Status report has been fil e d by the respondent-State. I t is submitted therein and learned Deputy A d vocate General, Punjab has ar g ued that the p e titioner was apprehended at the spot and commercial quantity o f the contraban d was recovered from him. He i s already involved in 04 other F IRs under the N DPS Act. Hence, the rigors o f Section 37 of the NDPS Act w o uld be attract e d against him. Trial may be ex p edited. It is also argued that i f the petitioner is released on bail, he can absc o nd or indulge in similar offenc e s. It is, thus, ar g ued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.12 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

I have heard learned counsel f or the parties at considerable le n gth and have a lso perused the material placed o n record.

¶24

The quantity of the contra b and allegedly recovered from the petitioner o bviously falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. Apart f rom the presen t case, he is shown to be involv e d in 04 other FIRs of similar na t ure. Hence, th e rigors of Section 37 of the N D PS Act would certainly be attr a cted against hi m as there is nothing on record to show that he did not commi t the subject cr i me or in case he is released on bail, he would not commit the similar of f ences. Although, the petitioner h as raised some points regardin g his false impl i cation but the same could not b e looked into by this Court at this stage whi l e deciding a petition for grant of bail. The case of the petiti o ner cannot be said to be at par with that of co-accused Baljit Singh as he was nominate d on the basis of the disclosure s t atement, whereas the petitioner was apprehen d ed at the spot and recovery o f aforesaid contraband was eff e cted from him. The mere fact that the petitio n er has undergone certain period of incarcerat i on by itself would not entitle h im to be enlarged on bail, no r the fact that t h e trial is not likely to be compl e ted in the near future either by i t self or couple d with the period of incarcerati o n would be sufficient for enlar g ing the petiti o ner on bail keeping in view t h e gravity of offence. Therefor e , in view the d iscussion as made above, the q uantity of the contraband recovered from the p etitioner, the quantum of sente n ce which the conviction may e n tail and the at t endant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion t h at the petitioner does not dese r ve to be granted benefit of re g ular bail, at thi s stage. Hence, the petition is di s missed.

¶25

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.12 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-1766-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶27

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are o nly

¶28

for the p u rpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall n o t be construed as an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

¶29

11.03.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whe t her speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whe t her reportable Yes/No

¶30

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.12 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jagtar Singh Alias Malli v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh Alias Malli v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakattar Singh Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Dalvir Singh Alias Soni Vs State of Punjab

Nathu Kushwaha Vs State of Punjab

Sonu Alias Don Vs State of Haryana

Nawab Ahmed Vs State of Haryana

Bindu Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana