Dismissed¶35

Gurdev Singh Alias Mota v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2026CRM-M/25072/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M), decided 17.07.2026 by Surya Partap Singh, J. Third bail petition under S.483 BNSS 2023 by Gurdev Singh @ Mota in FIR No.97 dated 05.06.2023 (PS Gharinda, Amritsar; NDPS, IPC and Arms Act charges) dismissed: no significant change in circumstances since second petition dismissed 31.10.2025; incarceration since then not enough to infer speedy-trial violation; S.37 NDPS twin conditions unmet given commercial-quantity (4 kg opium) recovery. Petitioner's counsel: Vikram Satpal Anand; State represented by I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

What did the court decide?

There is no significant change in the attending circumstances from the date of dismissal of the petitioner's second bail petition. ¶32

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

¶1

CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

217

¶4

CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.07.2026

¶5

Gurdev Singh @ Mota

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶11

Present : Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

¶14

This is third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.97 dated 05.06.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18, 21, 25, 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar.

¶15

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Rajbir Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 05.06.2023 at about 06.45 P.M, when he along with other police officials was on patrolling duty near Ranike Turn, a secret informer disclosed that co-accused ‘Rajinder Kumar @ Ghuddi’

¶16

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M) 2

¶18

was running a well-organized drug trafficking network along with his associates ‘Inderjit Singh @ Malli’, ‘Gurdev Singh @ Mota’ (petitioner herein) and his wife ‘Manpreet Kaur @ ‘Kirandeep Kaur’, and that they were engaged in procuring ‘Heroin’ and ‘Opium’. As per above named police officer, acting upon the above mentioned secret information, the police conducted a raid at the residence of ‘Rajinder Kumar @ Ghuddi’, where ‘Inderjit Singh @ Malli’, ‘Gurdev Singh @ Mota (petitioner herein) and ‘Manpreet Kaur @ Kirandeep Kaur’ were found packing narcotic substances. According to prosecution on search of the premises 4 kg of ‘Opium’, Rs.40,000 drug money, one .32 bore pistol with two empty magazines & four live cartridges and two fake arms licence were recovered. According to prosecution, from the purse of coaccused ‘Manpreet Kaur’ Rs.1 lakh, one key of Thar vehicle and one fake arms licence was recovered.

¶19

As per prosecution on recovery of above mentioned contraband and other articles, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were completed and further investigation taken-up. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the accused disclosed that co-accused ‘Rajinder Kumar @ Ghuddi’ was kingpin of the racket, who was involved in receiving Heroin and Opium consignments through drones from across the border, supply the contraband through his associates, collect the sale proceeds and purchase vehicles from the drug money.

¶20

Notice of motion.

¶21

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M) 3

¶23

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that second petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed way back on 31.10.2025. While claiming that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and seven months, the benefit of bail has been sought for the petitioner.

¶26

The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. The learned State counsel has contended that this is third petition for bail, and therefore, without showing change in attending circumstances, from the date of dismissal of second petition, the present petition is not maintainable. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there are allegations of recovery of 4 Kg. of contraband which comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions, enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.

¶27

The record has been perused carefully.

¶28

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

¶29

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

CRM-M No.25072 of 2026 (O&M) 4

¶31

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: -

¶32

i) that from the date of dismissal of second bail petition there is no significant change in attending circumstances;

¶33

ii) that the period of incarceration from the date of dismissal of second petition for bail, is not large enough to draw an inference that the right of speedy trial of the petitioner has been violated;

¶34

iii) that the quantity of contraband, recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner. However, in the present case there is nothing on record to show that petitioner complies with the above mentioned twin conditions.

¶35

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby observed that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶36

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶37

17.07.2026

¶38

Manoj Bhutani

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶40

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gurdev Singh Alias Mota v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh Alias Mota 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

Dr. Sudesh Sharma and Another Vs Ishawar Singh and Another

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nishant Alias Nishu Vs State of Haryana

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bakshi Ram Vs State of Punjab

Jagroop Singh @ Roop Vs State of Punjab