Dismissed¶42

Villiam @ William Masih v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2026CRM-M/12163/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail refused; Section-37 twin conditions not complied; commercial quantity heroin 4.660 kg (16 times lower threshold); recovery of 32 bore revolver and cartridges from vehicle; plea of non-ownership of car rejected; first bail petition under S.483 BNSS 2023; FIR No.247 dated 06.12.2024, PS Ajnala, District Amritsar; offences under SS 21(c) & 29 NDPS Act, 25 & 27 Arms Act, 249 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Surya Partap Singh; CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M); decided 27.05.2026; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The quantity of contraband recovered is 'commercial quantity' — in fact 16 times more than the quantity fixed for the lower threshold meant for commercial quantity. ¶34

Villiam @ William Masih Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, one of the occupants of the intercepted car from which 4.660 kg heroin (commercial quantity), a revolver and cartridges were recovered, is entitled to the benefit of bail notwithstanding the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act.

¶26

Court's answer

The quantity of contraband recovered is 'commercial quantity' — in fact 16 times more than the quantity fixed for the lower threshold meant for commercial quantity.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The rigors of Section-37 NDPS Act are attracted and nothing on record shows that any of the twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 stands complied with.

¶37

Key takeaways

Taking the cumulative effect of all factors (commercial quantity 16 times the threshold, weapon recovery aggravating the offence, the non-ownership plea unconvincing since such a huge quantity of contraband cannot be carried in the pocket), the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.ratio¶39
Clarification that the observations made in deciding the bail petition shall have no bearing upon the merits of the case.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First bail application under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No.247 dated 06.12.2024, Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (offences under Sections 21(c) and 29 NDPS Act, Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act, Section 249 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Petitioner Villiam @ William Masih, one of three occupants apprehended from an intercepted white car (make Venue, No. PB46-AF-0704), from which 4.660 kg heroin, one 32 bore revolver and five live cartridges were recovered. Court found the heroin to be 'commercial quantity' — 16 times the lower threshold — with the weapon recovery aggravating the offence; held the plea that recovery was from the car he neither owned nor drove unconvincing ('such a huge quantity of contraband cannot be carried in the pocket') and that neither twin condition of Section-37 NDPS Act stood complied with; petition dismissed. Court clarified its observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. — SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

¶1

CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

223 CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2026

¶4

Villiam @ William Masih

..... Petiti o ner

VERS U S

State of P unjab

..... Respon d ent

[ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶10

Present : Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advo c ate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *****

¶12

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

¶13

This petition for bail is the f irst petition, filed by the petiti o ner under Se c tion 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nag a rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been file d with regard to a case arising o u t of FIR No.247 dated 06.12.2 0 24, for the c o mmission of offence punishable under Sections 21(c) and 2 9 of Narcotic D rugs and Psychotropic Substa n ces Act, hereinafter being refe r red to as ‘N D PS Act’ only, Sections 25 and 2 7 of Arms Act and Section 24 9 of Bharatiy a Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police St a tion Ajnala, District Amritsar.

¶14

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instanc e of ‘Inspecto r /SHO Satpal Singh’, who had reported that on 06.12.2024, w h en he was l e ading a team of police official s , deputed for patrolling duty, a car make V e nue, bearing registration No. P B46-AF-0704 colour white, w as intercept e d. According to above-named police officer, five persons w ere travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas t h ree

¶15

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 2

¶17

were ap p rehended and when search of the abovementioned car w as conducte d , 4.660 kg of Heroin, one 32 b o re revolver, and five live cartri d ges were rec o vered.

¶18

It is the case of the prosec u tion that pursuant to recover y of aboveme n tioned contraband, necessary f o rmalities with regard to seizur e & sealing o f contraband, lodging of FIR, a n d formal arrest of the accused w ere complete d , and further investigation ta k en up. According to prosecut i on, during t h e course of investigation on i nterrogation, the abovementio n ed three per s ons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they discl o sed their ide n tity as ‘Makhan’, ‘Sajjan’ and ‘ W illiam’ (the petitioner herein) a nd also reve a led the names of two other p e rsons, who fled from the spot , as ‘Harpal’ a nd ‘Gursewak’.

¶19

Notice of motion .

¶20

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DA G , Punjab appears on behal f of responde n t-State. Hence service of notic e upon the State is hereby dispe n sed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitione r . The same be taken on record.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

It has been contended by le a rned counsel for the petitioner t hat the petiti o ner is innocent having no nexu s , whatsoever, with the commis s ion of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the owner of the car, and that in fact, he ha d hired the abovementioned car for visit to A mritsar on payment basis. It h a s also been contended by lear n ed

¶23

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 3

¶25

counsel fo r the petitioner that the recov e ry of contraband was from the car and as th e car was not being driven or o w ned by the petitioner, for reco v ery of any co n traband or weapon, the petitio n er cannot be held liable.

¶26

In addition to above, it ha s also been contended by lear n ed counsel f or the petitioner that otherwi s e also, the petitioner has alre a dy suffered a prolonged incarceration for be i ng in custody for a period of m ore than one y ear and five months, and that n o thing has been left to be recov e red from the possession of petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be conclude d in near future. In view of a bove, the learned counsel for the petitione r has contended that the instan t case is the fit case, wherein the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act shoul d be relaxed and the benefit of b ail should b e accorded to the petitioner.

¶27

The learned State C o unsel has controverted the aboveme n tioned arguments. It has been c ontended by learned State Cou n sel that the p etitioner is the member of a group involved in the tradin g of narcotic s ubstance at large scale, and th a t quantity of contraband recov e red from the car, wherein the petitioner w as travelling, coupled with the recovere d weapon, speaks in volumes, i n itself, about the scale of trade by the petitioner. According to learned S t ate Counsel, the abovementio n ed quantity o f ‘Heroin’ comes within the a m bit of ‘commercial quantity’, a nd therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of N D PS Act are attracted in the pre s ent case. As per learned State Counsel, th e twin conditions prescribed u n der Section-37 of NDPS Act does not stand complied with in the present c ase and there f ore, the petitioner is not entitle d to the benefit of bail.

¶28

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

The record has been perused carefully.

¶32

A perusal of record shows t h at in the present case, following are the relev a nt factors which are required t o be taken into consideration f o r a

¶33

decision:

¶34

i) that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present c ase comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. In fact, i t is 16 times more than the qua n tity fixed for the lower thres h old meant for ‘commercial quan t ity’;

¶35

ii ) that the recovery of weap o n from the same vehicle fur t her aggravates the offence;

¶36

ii i ) that this plea of the learne d counsel for the petitioner is not convincing that the recover y being from the car, the petiti o ner cannot be held liable for th e same. In fact this is a matte r of common prudence that su c h a huge quantity of contrab a nd cannot be carried in the poc k et;

¶37

iv) that the quantity of contraba n d recovered from the possessio n of petitioner being ‘commercia l quantity’, the rigors of Sectio n -37 of NDPS Act are attracted i n the present case. There is not h ing on record to show that any of the twin conditions, prescri b ed under Section-37 of NDPS Act, stands complied with in the present case; and

¶38

v ) that this argument of learn e d counsel for the petitioner is not relevant that petitioner is not owner of the vehicle.

¶39

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aboveme n tioned factors coupled with the heavy quantity of recov e red contraba n d, from the possession of pe t itioner, it is hereby held that the petitione r is not entitled to the benefit of b ail.

¶40

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-12163-2026 (O&M) 5

¶42

As a sequel to abovementio n ed observations, it is hereby h eld that bein g devoid of merit, the present p etition deserves dismissal. He n ce, the same i s hereby dismissed , accordingl y .