Dismissed¶¶27

Harpal Singh Alias Bhala v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CRM-M/2730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M); Harpal Singh @ Bhala v. State of Punjab; Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Manisha Batra, J.; pronounced 07.05.2025 (reserved 30.04.2025); regular bail; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act; Section 37 NDPS Act rigors; commercial quantity; 265 grams heroin; 05 grams heroin; disclosure statement; SI Harjinder Singh; Police Station Kathunangal, Amritsar; FIR No. 133 dated 15.11.2023; arrest 16.11.2023; parity; co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda; CRM-M-1954-2024 bail order 04.03.2024; habitual offender; multiple similar cases; absconding apprehension; criminal antecedents; bail application dismissed by trial Court on 03.06.2024; petition dismissed; bail refused.

What did the court decide?

None — regular bail refused to the petitioner at this stage ¶¶27

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — regular bail refused to the petitioner at this stage

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether Harpal Singh @ Bhala, arraigned in FIR No. 133 dated 15.11.2023 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The quantity of heroin (265 grams) recovered from the petitioner obviously falls within the ambit of commercial quantity; he is shown to be involved in multiple cases of similar nature, and hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are certainly attracted against him.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in its conclusion; this weighs against release on bail.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The apprehension that if released on bail the petitioner may abscond or indulge in similar offences cannot be stated to be unfounded, keeping in view his criminal antecedents.ratio¶¶27
The petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda (who was granted regular bail in CRM-M-1954-2024), because the contraband recovered from the co-accused was of small quantity whereas the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial quantity.ratio¶¶27
Keeping in view the quantity of recovered contraband, the petitioner's antecedents, the quantum of sentence which conviction may entail and the attendant circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of regular bail at this stage; the petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.), CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M), decided 07.05.2025: Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 declined to Harpal Singh @ Bhala, accused in FIR No. 133 dated 15.11.2023, P.S. Kathunangal, Amritsar, under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act. Nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda (05 grams heroin); 265 grams heroin — a commercial quantity — recovered at the petitioner's instance after arrest on 16.11.2023; challan presented and trial underway. Held: rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted given commercial quantity and involvement in multiple similar cases (State alleged six such cases and habitual offending); no undue delay in trial; apprehension of absconding/reoffending not unfounded given antecedents; parity plea with co-accused (granted bail on 04.03.2024 in CRM-M-1954-2024) rejected as co-accused's recovery was small quantity. Petition dismissed; observations expressly confined to the bail question, not the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 30.04.2025 Pronounced on : 07.05.2025

¶5

Harpal Singh @ Bhala

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present:Mr. Parivartan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶14

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 133 dated 15.11.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kathunangal, Amritsar.

¶15

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 15.11.2023, co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda was apprehended by a police party headed by SI Harjinder Singh and recovery of 05 grams of heroin was effected from him. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case and was arrested on 16.11.2023. Recovery of 265 of grams of heroin was effected at the instance of the petitioner. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and

¶16

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

presently, the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence. He had moved an application before the learned trial Court for grant of regular bail but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.06.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. The alleged recovery of 265 grams of heroin, shown to have been effected from the petitioner, was in fact made from an open field and the same was planted upon the petitioner. Even otherwise, co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed in CRM-M-1954-2024 . On the ground of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. He is in custody since 16.11.2023. The trial is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from him. He is a habitual offender and is involved in as many as six other cases of similar nature. Hence, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against him. Trial is going on at a proper pace. It is also argued that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or indulge in similar offences. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length

¶23

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

and have also perused the material placed on record.

¶27

The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda, who was apprehended by the police party on 15.11.2023 and from whom, recovery of 05 grams of heroin was effected. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had sold the recovered contraband to the co-accused. On arrest of the petitioner, recovery of 265 grams of heroin was effected at his instance. The quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner obviously falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. He is shown to be involved in multiple cases of similar nature. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against him. Trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond or indulge in similar offences, can also not be stated to be unfounded keeping in view his criminal antecedents. No doubt, co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Binda has been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, as mentioned above, but the petitioner cannot claim parity with him as the contraband recovered from him was of small quantity, whereas the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner falls under commercial quantity. Therefore, Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the antecedents of the petitioiner , 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

¶28

is dismissed.

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-2730-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

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.

¶33

07.05.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harpal Singh Alias Bhala v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh Alias Bhala 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

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mohit Vs State of Punjab and Another

Lovedeep Singh Alias Labhu and Another Vs State of Punjab

Jaskaran Singh Alias Joban Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab