Baljit Singh Alias Gulli v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2026CRM-M/2464/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail NDPS Act Punjab & Haryana High Court CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M) Rajesh Bhardwaj J.; Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity heroin 515 grams; alleged violation Sections 42 and 50 NDPS; FIR No.41 P.S. Lopoke Amritsar Rural; BNS 341(2) 317(2); prolonged incarceration 01 year 01 month 07 days custody certificate dated 05.05.2026; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 relied on; speedy conclusion of trial; Special Court Amritsar refusal order 15.11.2025; bail bonds seven days condition.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner ordered released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate; bonds must be furnished within seven days, failing which the custody period beyond one week will not be counted in this case. ¶¶35

Baljit Singh Alias Gulli Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of 515 grams of heroin (commercial quantity, attracting Section 37 NDPS Act), in view of his prolonged incarceration and the ratio in Mohd Muslim (supra). +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

The Court held that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), whose views (on Section 37 NDPS conditions being satisfied by reasonable prima facie satisfaction and the injustice of delayed trials) are reproduced and applied.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded, from the custody certificate produced by the State, that the petitioner had undergone incarceration of 01 year, 01 month and 07 days as on 05.05.2026.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

On hearing counsel and perusing the record, the Court concluded that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeded in making out a case for the grant of bail, while refraining from commenting on the merits.ratio¶¶35
The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶¶35
Condition attached: if the petitioner does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days, his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — NDPS Act. Regular bail petition (CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M)) arising from FIR No.41 dt. 24.03.2025, P.S. Lopoke, Amritsar Rural, under Sections 21(C), 25, 29, 61 and 85 NDPS Act and Sections 341(2), 317(2) BNS. On secret information, petitioner (motorcycle rider) and co-accused Arjinderpal Singh (pillion rider) apprehended; 515 grams heroin recovered from the bag — a commercial quantity (above 250 grams), engaging Section 37 NDPS Act; recovery effected from a public place. Petitioner urged violations of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act and non-conscious possession; State opposed. Custody: 01 year, 01 month and 07 days as on 05.05.2026 per custody certificate. Special Court, Amritsar had declined bail vide order dt. 15.11.2025. Relying on Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 — literal reading of Section 37 conditions would exclude bail altogether; court need only be reasonably satisfied on a prima facie view that the accused is not guilty; delayed trials wreck immeasurable injustice — the Court held the petitioner covered by that ratio, allowed the petition and directed release on bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, with a seven-day window for furnishing bonds (else custody beyond one week not counted). No expression of opinion on merits; veracity to be tested at trial.

¶1

- 1-

¶2

CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M)

¶3

219

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

-.-

¶6

CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.05.2026

¶7

Baljit Singh @ G ulli ....Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶11

Present: Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the p etitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Pr e sent first petition has been fil e d praying for the grant of reg u lar bail to the petit i oner in case bearing FIR No.41, dated 24.03.2025, under Sec t ion 21(C), 25, 29, 6 1 and 85 of NDPS Act and Section 341(2) and 317(2) of B N S, registered at Po l ice Station Lopoke, Amritsar R u ral.

¶16

Su c cinctly, the facts of the case ar e that on 24.03.2025, on the basi s of secret informat i on, SI Gopal Singh apprehen d ed petitioner Baljit Singh and coaccused Arjind e rpal Singh while riding a moto r -cycle. Petitioner Baljit Singh w as driving the mo t or-cycle. When they were giv e n signal to stop, the pillion ri d er, namely Arjind e rpal Singh (co-accused) tried t o throw a plastic bag. Both w ere apprehended and on suspicion the search of the same was conducted. On searc h of the bag 515 g r ams heroin was recovered. T h ey failed to produce any licence regarding the c o nscious possession of the sam e , thus, the FIR was registered a nd they were arre s ted on the spot. On registra t ion of the FIR, the investiga t ion commenced. T h e samples taken were sent t o the FSL. On completion of the

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M) - 2-

¶19

investigation, t h e challan was presented and on framing of charges, the t rial commenced. T h e petitioner approached the Co u rt of learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar prayi n g for the grant of regular bai l . However, after hearing both the sides and findi n g no merit in the same, the lea r ned Judge, Special Court, Amri t sar declined the bail application filed by the petit i oner vide order dated 15.11.2 0 25. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the gran t of regular bail by w ay of filing the present petition.

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner h as submitted that the petitioner has been falsely im p licated in the present case. H e has submitted that admittedly the case of the pro s ecution is based upon the secr e t information, however, there i s a violation of Se c tion 42 NDPS Act. He submit s that the alleged recovery has been made from the pillion rider and not from the c onscious possession of the pre s ent petitioner, therefore, there is a blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Sec t ion 50 of NDPS Ac t . He further submits that the pe t itioner is not involved in any o t her case of similar n ature and the petitioner is behi n d bars from the last more than o ne year. He has su b mitted that in the facts and cir c umstances, the petitioner dese r ves to be granted re g ular bail.

¶21

Pe r contra , learned counsel for th e State has vehemently opposed the submissions m a de by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted t hat there was a spe c ific secret information about th e petitioner and the co-accused. I t is further contend e d that from the search of the c o -accused 515 grams of heroin w as recovered, whi c h is a commercial quantity, an d , thus, the provisions of Sectio n 37 of NDPS Act a r e attracted. He has produced c ustody certificate of the petiti o ner today in the Co u rt, which is taken on record.

¶22

He a rd.

¶23

O n hearing learned counsel for th e parties and perusing the recor d , it

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M)

¶26

- 3-

¶27

is deciphered t h at the case of the prosecution i s based on the secret informat i on. Violation of S e ctions 42 and 50 of the ND P S Act has been contended. T he petitioner in th e present case was arrested on t h e spot on 24.03.2025. The alle g ed recovery of 51 5 grams of heroin has been e f fected from the public place. T he quantity above 250 grams of heroin is of co m mercial in nature, whereas in the present case r e covery attributed is 515 gra m s of heroin. Custody certifi c ate produced woul d show that the petitioner has s u ffered an incarceration of 01 y e ar, 01 month and 0 7 days as on 05.05.2026. 7. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme C ourt in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260 , this Court is of the opinion t hat the case of the p etitioner is covered by the rat i o of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its vi e ws as under:-

¶28

19. A plain and literal interpretat i on of the conditions under Sec t ion 37 (i.e., that Court should be sati s fied that the accused is not g u ilty an d would not commit any offence ) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in pu n itive detention and unsanctio n ed preventive detention as well. There f ore, the only manner in which s u ch sp e cial conditions as enacted u n der Section 37 can be consid e red wit h in constitutional parameters is where the court is reason a bly sat i sfied on a prima facie look at t h e material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that th e accused is not guilty. Any o t her int e rpretation, would result in co mp lete denial of the bail to a pe r son ac c used of offences such as thos e enacted under Section 37 of the N D PS Act.

¶29

20. x xxxx 21. .....it would be important t o reflect that laws which im p ose stri n gent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in pu b lic inte r est; yet, if trials are not concl u ded in time, the injustice wrecked on t h e individual is immeasurable.

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

- 4-

¶32

CRM-M-2464-2026 (O&M)

¶33

22. x xxxx

¶34

23. There is a further danger of t he prisoner turning to crime, “as cri m e not only turns admirable, b u t the more professional the cri m e, mo r e honour is paid to the crimi n al”²² (also see Donald Clemm e r’s ‘Th e Prison Community’ publis h ed in 1940²³ ). Incarceration has furt h er deleterious effects - where t he accused belongs to the wea k est eco n omic strata: immediate loss o f livelihood, and in several ca s es, sca t tering of families as well as l o ss of family bonds and aliena t ion fro m society. The courts therefore, h ave to be sensitive to these asp e cts (be c ause in the event of an acq u ittal, the loss to the accuse d is irre p arable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where spe c ial law s enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedil y .” 8. Th e veracity of the allegations w ould be assessed only after the conclusion of t h e trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before t h e trial Court.

¶35

Th i s Court would refrain itself fr om commenting anything on the merits of the c a se. Keeping in view the argu m ents raised by both the sides a nd perusing the r e cord, the Court is of the opi n ion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail. 10. Ac c ordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitione r is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfac t ion of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. H owever, if the petitioner does not furnish the bai l bonds within seven days fro m today, then his further cust o dy period after one week will not be counted in thi s case. 11. Nothing said herein shall be treate d as an expression of opinion on the merits of the ca s e.

¶36

May 06, 2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Speaki n g Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶37

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.08 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Baljit Singh Alias Gulli v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh Alias Gulli 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Vandana Sharma

Gagan Vs State of Haryana

Usha Rani @ Bhusi Vs State of Punjab

Janvi and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Asha Tayal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Punjab