Allowed¶7

Bhupinder Singh @ Kakku v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2025CRM-M/383/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab; CRM-M-383-2025; decided 24.07.2025; Punjab and Haryana High Court; N.S. Shekhawat J.; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No. 131 dated 19.05.2022; Police Station Patran; District Patiala; Sections 22, 27-A, 29 NDPS Act; 17500 Tramadol tablets; commercial quantity; custody since 19.05.2022; no other case; Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP No. 6690 of 2022, followed; bail bonds/surety bonds; trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. ¶7

Bhupinder Singh @ Kakku Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

229

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-383-2025 Date of Decision:24.07.2025

Bhupinder Singh

…Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

¶9

Present : Mr. P.S Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No. 131, dated 19.05.2022, registered under Sections 22,27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

¶14

According to the prosecution story, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 17500 tablets of Tramadol, without any permit or licence.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner falls under the category of “commercial quantity” and no independent witness was joined by the police party. He further contends that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He is in custody since 19.05.2022. Trial is likely to take long time and no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Thus, it

¶16

HITESH 2025.07.24 19:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-383-2025

¶18

-2

¶19

is prayed that he may be released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP No. 6690 of 2022, titled as “Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs.

¶20

State of Uttar Pradesh” , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶21

“2. The allegations are that on a secret information, the police authorities intercepted two vehicles on 23.06.2020 i.e. one 'Gray' coloured 'Honda City' car and the second 'White' coloured ' Swift Dzire' car. On an interrogation at the spot, Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya, Rishab Kumar Maurya and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla were found to be occupants of the 'Honda City' car whereas the petitioner was driving the 'Swift Dzire' car. On taking a search, more than 92 kgs. Ganja was allegedly recovered from 'Honda City' car where as more than 65 kgs. Ganja was recovered from 'Swift Dzire' Car. The accused were arrested at the spot. The petitioner is, thus, in custody since 24.06.2020.

¶22

3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed.

¶23

4. For the reasons stated above but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However,

¶25

HITESH 2025.07.24 19:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

CRM-M-383-2025

¶27

-3

¶28

he fairly conceded the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

¶30

carefully.

¶31

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, custody period of the petitioner and also the fact that the quantity of alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner falls under the category of ‘commercial quantity’, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

¶32

Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (Supra) , the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶33

		(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
24.07.2025		JUDGE
hitesh
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶34

HITESH 2025.07.24 19:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Bhupinder Singh @ Kakku v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh @ Kakku 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

Mohit Vs State of Haryana

Balvir Singh Alias Bira Vs State of Punjab

Gurjant Singh Alias Janta Vs State of Punjab

Meera Devi Alias Usha Vs State of Punjab

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab