Gurmej Singh Vs State of Punjab

This petition has been filed b y the petitioner under Section 4 8 3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 3 seeking regular bail in case ar i sing out of FI R No. 184 dated 09.10.2024, re g istered under Sections 21(c), 2 7 (A) and 29 o f the Narcotic Drugs and Psyc h otropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ND P S Act’) at Police Station Chhe h arta, District Amritsar (Rural). 2. Brief facts of the case releva n t for the purpose of disposal o f this petition a r e that on receiving a secret inf o rmation that co-accused Akash d eep Singh @ A kash and Satinderpal Singh @ Satti, who are real brothers, w ere involved i n smuggling with Pakistani smugglers, a raid was conducted at t heir house an d on the demarcation of co-acc u sed Akashdeep Singh @ Aka s h, 2 kgs. and 5 00 grams of heroin along with drug money of Rs.2.32 Lakhs was recovered, whereas 2 kgs. of heroin an d drug money of Rs. 2 Lakhs was recovered on the demarcation of co-accu s ed Satinderpal Singh @ Satti. T hey were for m ally arrested at the spot. Duri n g the course of investigation, the disclosure statements of above named c o -accused were recorded and o n the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.14 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-3560-2025 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

basis of t h e same, some other persons w e re also nominated in this case and certain re c overies of contraband were eff e cted. Co-accused Akashdeep S i ngh @ Akash made further disclosure, wh e rein he disclosed that the pr e sent petitioner, who was deputed in jail being an official, used to contact hi m by making W hatsapp calls from his mobil e number in order to get heroi n to supply th e same to jail inmates. On t h e basis of the same, the pr e sent petitioner was nominated in this case a s an accused and was arreste d on 10.10.202 4 . He had moved an applicatio n before the Court of learned Judge, Special C o urt, Amritsar but the same ha d been dismissed, vide order d ated 04.01.202 5 .

¶17

Learned counsel for the peti t ioner has argued that the petiti o ner has been f alsely implicated in this case. T he petitioner was not found a t the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure state m ent made by t h e co-accused, which is not ad m issible in evidence against him. He was not e v en named in the secret inform a tion. He was in fact working a s jail warden a n d had no connection with the c o -accused. To fortify this argu m ent, learned c o unsel for the petitioner has re l ied upon the authority of Ho n ’ble Supreme C ourt rendered in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 . It is further argued that the no su b sequent recovery has been eff e cted from the p etitioner. The petitioner is not i n volved in any other case of si m ilar nature. T h ere is nothing on record to co n nect the petitioner with the su b ject crime. Th e petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2024. The case is still u n der investigat i on. No useful purpose would b e served by keeping the petition e r in custody a n ymore. It is, therefore, urge d that the petition deserves t o be allowed.

¶18

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.14 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-3560-2025 (O&M)

¶20

-3-

¶21

Status report has been fil e d by the respondent-State. I t is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has ar g ued that thou g h the petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis o f the disclosure suffered by the co-accused bu t during the course of investiga t ion, his involv e ment in the subject crime has b een established. The petitioner u sed to supply the contraband to jail inmate s by taking the same from the coaccused. H e used to contact the co-accused by making Whatsapp calls f rom his mobil e phones. Investigation is still going on. There are serious allega t ions against the petitioner. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable t o be dismissed.

¶22

In reply, learned counsel fo r the petitioner has relied upo n an order dat e d 23.08.2023, passed by the H on’ble Supreme Court in Sp e cial Leave to a ppeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titl e d as Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs. State of Kerala , whereby in similar circumstan c es, the petitioner-accused had b een granted c o ncession of regular bail by observing that there was re m ote likelihood of the petitioner’s involveme n t as the alleged involvement was entirely b a sed upon the co-accused’s state m ent and alleged call details rec o rd. 6. 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.

¶23

The petitioner has been nomi n ated in this case on the basis o f the disclosure made by co-accused Akash d eep Singh @ Akash, who was apprehen d ed by the police party along w i th co-accused Satinderpal Sing h @ Satti and aforesaid recovery of heroin a nd drug money was effected f rom them. Th e allegations against the petit i oner are that he used to procure contraban d from the co-accused by cont a cting him through Whatsapp c alls

¶24

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.14 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-3560-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶26

and used t o supply the same to jail inma t es. However, after the arrest o f the petitioner, nothing incriminating was re c overed from him. The case is still under inv e stigation. The petitioner is in j u dicial custody since 10.10.202 4 . At this stage, there is nothing on record to c o nnect the petitioner with the su b ject crime, ex c ept the aforesaid disclosure s t atement of the co-accused. As per ratio of la w as laid down by Hon’ble Sup r eme Court in above cited auth o rity, the same a lone cannot be a ground to den y the benefit of bail to the petiti o ner as no sub s equent recovery of any narcoti c substance was effected from h im. Keeping i n view the discussion as made a b ove, I am of the considered opi n ion that no us e ful purpose would be served b y detaining the petitioner in cus t ody anymore. Accordingly, the present peti t ion is allowed. The petition e r is ordered to be released on regular bail, sub j ect to his furnishing personal/s u rety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate conce r ned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case th e petitioner is found involved in a ny other subsequent case. 8. 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.

¶27

13.05.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE

¶28

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

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.14 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmej Singh 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

Sanjay Hans Alias Sanjay Hansa Vs State of Haryana

Gurwinder Singh @ Khedi Wala Baba Vs State of Punjab

Amar Singh Singal Vs State of Punjab

Sabir Vs State of Haryana

Sangeeta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravi Vs State of Haryana