Allowed¶24

Manpreet Singh Alias Babbu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2025CRM-M/25296/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-25296-2025 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana HC; Manisha Batra, J.; Section 483 BNSS 2023 regular bail; FIR 15/06.03.2025 PS Sadar Malout; Sections 18(b), 27, 29 NDPS Act 1985; opium 170 grams non-commercial quantity; recovery on disclosure statement of co-accused Raju (10.5 kgs. opium); investigation complete, challan to be filed; custody since 09.03.2025; petitioner on bail in other cases; bail allowed on personal/surety bonds; liberty to prosecute cancellation application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; liberty preserved to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any subsequent case. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 15 dated 06.03.2025 under Sections 18(b), 27 and 29 NDPS Act, 1985, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

As the quantity recovered from the petitioner is non-commercial, investigation is complete, challan is yet to be filed so trial would take considerable time, the petitioner is on bail in other cases and has been in custody since 09.03.2025, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any longer.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The 170 grams of Opium shown to have been recovered from the petitioner does not fall under commercial quantity.

¶24

Key takeaways

It will remain open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.obiter¶24
All observations made in the order are only for deciding the bail petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.) allowed a regular-bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 by Manpreet Singh @ Babbu, implicated in FIR No. 15 dated 06.03.2025, P.S. Sadar Malout (District Sri Muktsar Sahib) under Sections 18(b), 27 and 29 NDPS Act, 1985 solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Raju, from whose custody 10.5 kgs. of Opium and Rs. 35,000 drug money were seized. Recovery attributed to the petitioner: 170 grams of Opium, held not to fall under commercial quantity. Investigation complete, challan yet to be filed, custody since 09.03.2025, and petitioner already on bail in other cases. Holding no useful purpose would be served by further detention, the Court released him on personal/surety bonds, reserved liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation upon involvement in any subsequent case, and clarified its observations would not bear on the merits of the trial.

¶1

CRM-M-25296-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

CRM-M-25296-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 06.08.2025 Pronounced on : 08.08.2025

¶5

Manpreet Singh @ Babbu ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶9

Present:Ms. Anu Bala Garg, Advocat e for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Pu n jab.

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶12

This petition has been filed b y the petitioner under Section 4 8 3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 3 , for grant of regular bail to hi m in case beari n g FIR No. 15 dated 06.03.2025, registered under Sections 18(b ) , 27 and 29 o f the NDPS Act, 1985 at Polic e Station Sadar Malout, Distric t Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶13

Brief facts of the case releva n t for the purpose of disposal o f this petition are that on 05.03.2025, on the ba s is of secret information, co-acc u sed Raju was a pprehended by a police party h eaded by ASI Jagdish and reco v ery of 03 kgs. 500 grams of Opium along w i th drug money of Rs. 35,000/was effected f r om him. Thereafter, at his inst a nce, another recovery of 07 kg s . of Opium w as effected from his house. Upon interrogation, he suf f ered disclosure statement admitting his gui l t and disclosed that the pr e sent petitioner had purchased 200 grams of O p ium from him. On the basis o f the same, th e petitioner was nominated i n this case and was arreste d on

¶14

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-25296-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶16

09.03.202 5 and recovery of 170 grams of Opium was effected from h im. Some oth e r persons were also named in this case as accused. Investig a tion now stand s completed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the peti t ioner has argued that the petiti o ner has been f alsely implicated in this case. In fact, a false recovery has b een planted u p on him. Mandatory provisions o f the NDPS Act were not com p lied with. The quantity of the contraband alle g edly recovered from the petiti o ner otherwise does not fall under com m ercial quantity. Even other w ise, investigat i on has since been completed and challan is to be filed by the prosecution. Conclusion of trial would ta k e considerable time. The petiti o ner is in cust o dy since 09.03.2025. He has fa l sely been implicated in some o ther cases also but he is on bail in those cases. No useful purpose would be se r ved by keepin g him in custody anymore. It i s, therefore, urged that the pet i tion deserves t o be allowed.

¶18

Custody certificate of the p e titioner as well as the status r e port has been f iled by the respondent-State. L e arned State counsel has argued that keeping i n view the gravity of the allega t ions levelled against the petiti o ner, he is not e ntitled to get benefit of bail. H ence, it is urged that the petiti o n is liable to b e dismissed.

¶19

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.

¶20

The petitioner has been nomi n ated in this case on the basis o f the disclosure made by co-accused Raju, fro m whose custody, recovery of t otal 10.5 kgs. o f Opium was effected. The all e gation against the petitioner is that

¶21

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-25296-2025 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

he had pu r chased 200 grams of the said c ontraband from the co-accused , out of which, 170 grams of the contraband w as shown to have been recovered from him. The said quantity of the contra b and does not fall under comme r cial quantity. T he investigation of the case is now complete and challan sha l l be filed in d ue course, which means th a t conclusion of trial would take considera b le time. The petitioner is on b a il in other cases. He is in cus t ody since 09.0 3 .2025. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful p urpose would be served by kee p ing the petiti o ner in custody anymore. A c cordingly, the present petitio n is allowed. T he petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject t o his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the s atisfaction of the trial Court/ D uty Magistrat e concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to a p ply for cancel l ation of bail in case the petiti o ner is found involved in any o ther subseque n t case. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is o nly for the p u rpose of deciding the present p etition and the same shall hav e no bearing o n the merits of the case.

¶25

08.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE

¶26

Whe t her speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whe t her reportable Yes/No

¶27

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manpreet Singh Alias Babbu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh Alias Babbu 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Seema Vs State of Punjab

Sajal Rassewatt Vs State of Haryana

Jatin Bhatia Vs State of Haryana

Habib Mohammad and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another