Dismissed¶15

Surjit Singh Alias Keeru v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2025CRM-M/20559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.), CRM-M-20559-2025, decided April 17, 2025: anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS by Surjit Singh @ Keeru in NDPS case FIR No.69 dated 01.12.2024 (Sections 15 and 29, NDPS Act), PS Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga; 52 Kg. poppy husk recovered from co-accused whose disclosure statements nominated the petitioner; custodial interrogation held necessary to know source of contraband; anticipatory bail refused; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner will be required to know the source of the contraband. ¶14

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

¶1

102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-20559-2025 Date of Decision: April 17, 2025

¶3

Surjit Singh @ Keeru

¶4

…Pe��oner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Vidit Bansal, Advocate for the pe��oner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶8

By way of present pe��on filed under Sec�on 482 BNSS, pe��oner prays for grant of an�cipatory bail in a case FIR No.69 dated 01.12.2024, under Sec�on 15 and 29 (Act No.61 of 1985) of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Sta�on Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga.

¶9

As per prosecu�on allega�ons, based upon a secret informa�on against co-accused Veer Singh and Nishan Singh, 52 Kg. of poppy husk was recovered at their instance. In the disclosure statement, they nominated the pe��oner besides one Sukhwinder Singh, telling that they used to purchase the contraband from the pe��oner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the pe��oner contends that pe��oner has been falsely implicated; that no recovery was effected from him; and that he is ready to join the inves�ga�on.

¶11

No�ce of mo�on.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts no�ce on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶13

Learned State counsel submits that the pe��oner is also involved in one more case and was specifically named by the co-accused to be the seller of the contraband.

¶14

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, this Court consider that the custodial interroga�on of the pe��oner will be required to know the source of the contraband. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of benefit of an�cipatory bail.

¶15

As such, present pe��on is dismissed.

¶16

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶17

April 17, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶18

Sarita Rani 2025.04.17 12:29 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Surjit Singh Alias Keeru v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh Alias Keeru 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

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Lovedeep Singh Alias Lovely and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab through Its Home Secretary and Others

Sourav Saini Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vicky Garg Vs State of Haryana