Gurtej Singh Alias Jaggi Vs State of Punjab

The Prayer in this petition under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.128 dated 10.07.2022 under Sections 21(C) & 61 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that Lovepreet Singh @ Sabu (since granted bail vide order dated 06.02.2024 in CRM-M-4940-2024) and Gurtej Singh @ Jaggi (petitioner) came to be apprehended with 920 intoxicating tablets, subsequently found to contain the salt Tramadol Hydrochloride.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the

¶19

time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody for the VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-2426-2025 # 2

¶21

last 02 years 09 months and 24 days and only 01 of the 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. (s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023 , more so when his co-accused had already been granted the similar concession.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is a first time offender, in custody for the last 02 years 09 months and 24 days, only 01 of the 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and that the co-accused had been granted bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

¶23

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on

¶24

01.08.2022 held as under:-

¶25

“As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

¶26

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No.

¶27

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-2426-2025

¶29

# 3

¶30

612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

¶31

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined.

¶32

The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents .

¶33

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶34

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶35

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

¶36

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

¶37

of.”

¶38

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

¶39

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

¶40

“1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act’) in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

¶41

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and

¶42

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-2426-2025 # 4

¶44

four months.

¶45

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶46

carefully perused the record.

¶47

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶48

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶49

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

¶50

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

¶51

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶52

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

¶53

(emphasis supplied)

¶54

Admittedly, in ‘ Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and

¶55

Hasanujjaman & others (supra)’, the accused therein had been granted the concession of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after they had undergone approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time offenders as is borne out from the orders.

¶56

In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for

¶57

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

# 5

¶59

CRM-M-2426-2025

¶60

the last 02 years 09 months and 24 days and only 01 of the 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. He is a first-time offender with no other case registered against him. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail, moreso as the co-accused has already been granted the same concession.

¶61

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner- Gurtej Singh @ Jaggi son of Sh. Pala Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶62

The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case.

¶63

In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

¶64

The petition stands disposed of.

¶65

	( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE
May 08, 2025
Vinay
*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶66

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.05.08 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurtej Singh Alias Jaggi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurtej Singh Alias Jaggi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Lal Vs State of Haryana

Karanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurmail Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kanwar Naunihal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaskaran Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rohit and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another