Dharampreet Singh Alias Dhammi Vs State of Punjab

As per the allegations, on 13.03.2024 on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the petitioner along with his brother Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, Jaspreet Singh and Sandeep Singh was involved in sale of contrabands and all of them were present at the house of accused Sandeep Singh with huge quantity of heroin that was to be sold in Moga and could be apprehended, a raiding party was immediately

¶17

MANJU 2025.09.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM-M No.7899 of 2025

¶20

formed. Intimation was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. Raiding party reached at the informed place and found one Verna car parked outside the house of accused Sandeep Singh. There were three occupants of the same who were apprehended and disclosed their names as Dharampreet Singh @ Dhammi ( the present petitioner ), Sandeep Singh Bhatti and Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina. After giving due notice and completion of formalities, the vehicle was searched and one black coloured kit bag was found kept therein. On opening the same, six packets of polythenes were kept therein. On checking, heroin was found kept therein. On weighing, 5.5 kg of heroin was recovered from the packets. The contraband was taken into custody. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. They disclosed that the accused Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa was in contact with accused Sandeep Singh through JangiApp and used to provide the contraband to sell it. Two days prior to the occurrence, the accused Sandeep Singh had met the above named Jaspreet Singh who had handed over a sum of Rs.9 lakhs to him with a direction to give the same to one person at Rajasansi Amritsar and to take 06 packets of contraband from him. Accused Sandeep Singh along with the petitioner and Sukhchain Singh had gone to Amritsar and had reached near Rajasansi bus stand to take delivery of contraband from a youth whose photograph had been sent by Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa on JangiApp. He had handed over packets of contraband to them. Investigation now stands completed.

¶21

MANJU 2025.09.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶22

-3-

¶23

CRM-M No.7899 of 2025

¶24

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, he was arrested from his house at 7:48 AM on 13.03.2024 and was taken by the police in his Honda Amaze car. A false recovery was planted upon him. The incident was captured in the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the vicinity. He is in custody since long. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. The trial will take considerable time. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶25

Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The CCTV footage does not show the location or identity of the person who were allegedly taking the car of the petitioner. The commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him and the co-accused. Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted. The petitioner is a habitual offender since he has been held guilty and convicted in a case under Section 29 of NDPS Act. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶26

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶27

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to be involved in the business of receiving and supplying contraband. The recovery of huge quantity of heroin was effected from him and the co-

¶28

MANJU 2025.09.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶29

-4-

¶30

CRM-M No.7899 of 2025

¶31

accused. He has criminal antecedents. The pendrive alleged to be containing CCTV footage showing that he had been apprehended from his house, is placed on record. The same has been played on the official computer of this Court but this pendrive is not found to be containing any video recording whatsoever at all. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against him, his antecedents, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶32

08.09.2025	(M	ANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶33

MANJU 2025.09.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Dharampreet Singh Alias Dhammi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampreet Singh Alias Dhammi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs Yamuna Parshad

Sarwan Singh @ Sama Vs State of Punjab

Ram Narayan Singh @ Gagan Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs M/S Vijson Finance

Pankaj Mahajan Vs Yudhvir

Joginder Singh Vs Chhinderpal Singh