Gurpreet Singh @ Gori Vs State of Haryana

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶17

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶18

The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 22.12.2024, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 30 grams 65 milligram heroin from the possession of one Avtar Singh @ Taari, who named the petitioner in his disclosure statement. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

¶19

During custodial interrogation, the main accused, Avtar Singh @ Taari confessed before the Police officer that he had purchased the drugs from the petitioner. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail. Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

¶20

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶21

ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

1

2

CRM-M-3344-2025

The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶26

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

¶27

“6. That on 22.12.2024 disclosure statement of the accused Avtar Singh @ Tari was recorded wherein the accused Avtar Singh @ Tari disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the petitioner/accused. Copy of disclosure statement of the accused Avtar Singh @ Tari is appended herewith as Annexure R-1.

¶28

7. That on 23.12.2024 the accused Avtar Singh @ Tari was produced before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate alongwith case property and inventory of the case property was done as per law by the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate. Accused Avtar Singh @ Tari was confined in judicial custody by the order of Ld. Illaqa Magistrate.

¶29

8. That the name of petitioner/accused is reflected in the disclosure statement of the co-accused Avtar Singh @ Tari as a supplier of the recovered Heroin and the drugs like heroin are deep rooted drugs in the society which target the youth.

¶30

9. That the petitioner/accused custody is required in the present case to nab the source of supply of the Heroin and to ascertain the involvement of the other accused who are indulge in the businesses of selling narcotic substance/heroin.

¶31

10. That the narcotic substance i.e. 30 grams 65 milligram Heroin is recovered from the co-accused Avtar Singh @ Tari in the present case.”

¶32

REASONING:

¶33

The evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements. Such statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023 and quantity involved is small in this case.

¶34

Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

¶35

Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of

¶36

ANJU RANI2025.02.07 15:36 the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High CourtChandigarh 2

3

CRM-M-3344-2025

regular statutes.

Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pretrial incarceration.

¶41

The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for the purpose of bail.

¶42

Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the petition, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

¶43

Given the above, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail.

¶44

The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other coaccused with a higher role.

¶45

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶46

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶47

1.	AADHAR number
2.	Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number (If available)
4.	E-Mail id (If available)

¶48

The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and

¶49

ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

3

4

CRM-M-3344-2025

shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶54

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶55

Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

¶56

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶57

In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.”

¶58

ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

4

5

CRM-M-3344-2025

This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner

¶63

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail .

¶64

The concerned trial court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the above conditions and shall be competent to do so in accordance with the law.

¶65

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶66

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶67

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶68

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 07.02.2025 anju rani

¶69

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶70

ANJU RANI 2025.02.07 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶71

5

Gurpreet Singh @ Gori v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh @ Gori v. State of Haryana

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

Shanti Vs State of Haryana

Sunita Rani Alias Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ajay Vs State of Haryana

Amritpal Singh Alias Harry Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Haryana