Rupinder Singh Alias Roopa Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhagwan Singh, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.34, dated 26.03.2025, under Sections 21(C), 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.

¶28

LAVISHA 2026.03.16 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M-65892-2025 CRM-M-13139-2026

¶30

2

¶31

Petition, i.e. CRM-M-13139-2026 is filed by the petitioner – Rupinder Singh alias Roopa Singh, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.34, dated 26.03.2025, under Sections 21-C/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, on the basis of chance recovery and mere suspicion, four accused, namely (i) Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, (ii) Rajan @ Tiddi, (iii) Bhagwan Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-65892-2025), and (iv) Rupinder Singh @ Roopa Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-13139-2026), were initially apprehended and thereafter searched.

¶33

After seeking consent and on instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, search of accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi was conducted. During the search, a heavy object tied around his waist with a cloth under his T-shirt was noticed. Upon opening the cloth and weighing the substance, it was found to be 1 kilogram and 544 grams of heroin.

¶34

From accused-Rajan @ Tiddi, one Realme touchscreen mobile phone was recovered. From accused/petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, one MI touchscreen mobile phone was recovered from the right pocket of his pant, and from the pajama of accused/petitioner-Rupinder Singh @ Roopa Singh, two mobile phones—one of POCO and one of Realme company—were recovered.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners argue that both the petitioners are in custody for the last about one year and as per the allegations, except for being in the company of co-accused Gurpreet

¶36

LAVISHA 2026.03.16 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶37

CRM-M-65892-2025 CRM-M-13139-2026

¶38

3

¶39

Singh @ Gopi, nothing incriminating has been recovered from any of the accused persons, including the present petitioners.

¶40

It is further submitted that, except petitioner-Rupinder Singh @ Roopa Singh, all the other three accused belong to the same village, namely Kuralian, and therefore, joining the company of each other cannot be said to be unusual. Moreover, recovered contraband was allegedly tied around the waist of the main accused-Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi under his T-shirt, and therefore, there was no reason for the petitioners or any other co-accused to have knowledge of the same, so as to attribute common intention or conscious possession to them.

¶41

It is further submitted that challan in the present case was presented on 22.09.2025, and charges were framed on 19.12.2025. Out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date. Therefore, culmination of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Thus, counsel jointly pray for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in the present case.

¶42

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 15.03.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.

¶43

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is not against any individual but is an offence against society at large. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

¶44

LAVISHA 2026.03.16 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶45

CRM-M-65892-2025 CRM-M-13139-2026

¶46

4

¶47

It is further submitted that in case, petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they may create problems relating to law and order and may indulge in similar activities in the future. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the present petitions.

¶48

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it. 9. Admittedly, both the petitioners are in custody for the last about one year, and charges were framed on 19.12.2025. Out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date. Thus, culmination of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The crucial question before the trial Court during the course of trial, would be whether the petitioners, who were allegedly present in the company of the main accused-Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, had knowledge of the conscious possession of the recovered contraband, or not. Therefore, petitioners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. 10. Considering the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to both the petitioners in the present case.

¶49

Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions, i.e. CRM-M-65892-2025 and CRM-M-13139-2026 is allowed . Petitioners – Bhagwan Singh and Rupinder Singh alias Roopa Singh are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶50

LAVISHA 2026.03.16 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶51

CRM-M-65892-2025 CRM-M-13139-2026

¶52

5

¶53

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶54

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶55

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

¶56