Dismissed¶29

Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2026CRM-M/13315/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail dismissed; NDPS; 54 kg poppy husk commercial quantity; vehicle registered in petitioner's name; prima facie complicity; Section 37 NDPS invoked by State; adverse antecedents with one NDPS conviction; 3 of 20 witnesses examined; no undue trial delay; CRM-M-13315-2026; Manisha Batra, J.; 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Commercial quantity of contraband was admittedly recovered from the car owned by the petitioner; though he was not present in the vehicle, his prima facie complicity in the crime stands established. ¶26

Harjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 85 dated 09.06.2024 (NDPS Act, PS STF SAS Nagar, Mohali), notwithstanding recovery of a commercial quantity of poppy husk from a car registered in his name, his prima facie complicity, his adverse antecedents including a conviction in another NDPS case, and the applicability of Section 37 NDPS rigours.

¶14

Court's answer

Commercial quantity of contraband was admittedly recovered from the car owned by the petitioner; though he was not present in the vehicle, his prima facie complicity in the crime stands established.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

There is no undue delay in the conclusion of the trial: out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined and 06 given up, and the trial is going on at a proper pace.

¶26

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner's criminal antecedents (four other NDPS cases and conviction in one), and the facts and circumstances noticed, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.ratio¶28
Clarification that observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.) dismissed a regular-bail petition under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No. 85 dated 09.06.2024, PS Special Task Force, SAS Nagar, Mohali, registered under Sections 15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act. On 54 kg of poppy husk (commercial quantity) being recovered from car PB-80-3745 during naka checking at Talwandi Sabo, occupants Bunty Singh and Bablu @ Jony were arrested; the vehicle being registered in the petitioner's name, he was nominated as an accused and Sections 25 and 29 were added vide DDR No. 10 dated 01.09.2024; he was arrested on 21.10.2025 and had remained in custody, with only 3 of 20 prosecution witnesses examined (6 given up). Holding that his prima facie complicity stood established despite his absence from the vehicle (the State having invoked Section 37 NDPS rigours on account of the commercial quantity), that his antecedents were unclean (four other NDPS cases, conviction in one per custody certificate), and that there was no undue trial delay, the Court declined bail and dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations were not an expression of opinion on merits. Pending applications were rendered infructuous.

¶1

CRM-M-13315-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-13315-2026 Date of decision: 20^th July, 2026

Harjeet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present: Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 85 dated 09.06.2024 registered under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘ NDPS Act ’) at Police Station Special Task Force (STF), SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶15

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of rukka submitted by ASI Des Raj, who along with other police officials was present at a naka laid at main road, Talwandi Sabo, in connection with checking of suspicious vehicles. As per the allegations, at about 2:30 A.M., one car bearing registration No. PB-80-3745 was intercepted due to suspicion. The driver attempted to reverse the vehicle and flee from the spot but could not

¶16

PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-13315-2026 -2-

¶18

succeed due to the narrow road. The occupants of the vehicle disclosed their names as Bunty Singh and Bablu @ Jony. On conducting search of the vehicle, three plastic bags lying on the rear seat were recovered, which were found containing 54 kg of poppy husk. The recovered contraband as well as the vehicle were taken into police possession after completing the necessary formalities. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Accused Bunty and Bablu @ Jony were formally arrested. It was further revealed that the vehicle from which the recovery had been effected was registered in the name of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act were added vide DDR No. 10 dated 01.09.2024. The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure statement and only for the reason that the vehicle involved in the occurrence was registered in his name. It is contended that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that he was not named in the FIR. He has remained in custody for over 08 months. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as only three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is also argued that his involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny him the concession of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-13315-2026 -3-

¶22

Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the allegations

¶23

levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. His antecedents are not clean, as several other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act have been registered against him and he has also been convicted in one such case. It is contended that the car owned by the petitioner was found to have been used in the commission of the present offence, thereby prima facie indicating his active complicity. It is further submitted that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, as the recovery effected is of commercial quantity. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶24

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

¶25

Admittedly, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the car owned by the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not found present in the said vehicle, his prima facie complicity in the crime stands established. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean. Apart from his involvement in four other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act, he is stated to have been convicted in one such case, as reflected in the custody certificate. The trial is going on at a proper pace. Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 03 have already been examined and 06 have been given up. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the

¶26

PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-13315-2026 -4-

¶28

petitioner, his criminal antecedents, and the facts and circumstances noticed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is

¶29

dismissed.

¶30