Dismissed¶11

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Bail – NDPS Act

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2026CRM-M/33455/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC (Surya Partap Singh, J.; pronounced 18.02.2026) dismisses third bail petition of Sukhwinder Singh in FIR No.257 dated 13.10.2022, Sections 21-C & 25 NDPS Act (S.25 later deleted), PS STF SAS Nagar (Mohali) — 1 kg heroin recovered; custody approx. 3 years 4 months; second petition dismissed 14.11.2025; trial near completion (8 of 13 witnesses examined) and proclaimed-offender antecedents (S.174-A/174A IPC) weighed cumulatively; no fresh ground held; observations clarified as not affecting trial merits.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, most of the witnesses as per the list of witnesses have already been examined and the trial is entering its final stage. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in this, his third, bail petition arising out of FIR No.257 dated 13.10.2022 (Sections 21-C and 25 NDPS Act), given custody of approximately three years and four months and the contention that such long custody without commensurate trial progress infringes his right of personal liberty and speedy trial, notwithstanding dismissal of his two earlier bail petitions. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, most of the witnesses as per the list of witnesses have already been examined and the trial is entering its final stage.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

From the date of dismissal of the second bail petition, no significant change in circumstances has taken place.

¶10

Key takeaways

The petitioner does not have clean antecedents.ratio¶10
The FIR filed against the petitioner under Section 174A of IPC shows that at one point of time he was even declared a proclaimed offender.ratio¶10
Taking the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, no fresh ground for maintaining the instant petition, being the third petition for bail, is made out; the petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – NDPS Act – Third bail petition dismissed (High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, Surya Partap Singh, J.; reserved 10.02.2026, pronounced 18.02.2026). Petitioner Sukhwinder Singh, in custody approximately three years and four months, sought bail in FIR No.257 dated 13.10.2022 under Sections 21-C and 25 of the NDPS Act (Section 25 later deleted), PS STF, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), arising from interception of a white Volkswagen Polo (PB10-DF-9613) on a tip-off and recovery of 1 kg of heroin from his possession; his second bail petition had been dismissed on 14.11.2025 with no significant trial progress thereafter. Weighing the record, the court found: (i) trial at final stage, eight of thirteen prosecution witnesses examined; (ii) no significant change in circumstances since dismissal of the second petition; (iii) unclean antecedents — prosecution in another NDPS Act case in which he was declared a proclaimed offender, with FIR under Section 174A/174-A IPC. Held: no fresh ground made out for the third petition; petition dismissed as devoid of merit, with express clarification that the observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. Counsel: L.S. Sekhon for petitioner; Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab for the State.

¶1

CRM-M-33455-2025 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-33455-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Pronounced on : 18.02.2026

Sukhwinder Singh

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶10

Argued by : Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

¶12

¶13

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

¶14

This is third petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.257 dated 13.10.2022 under Sections 21-C and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only (Section 25 of NDPS Act deleted later on), Police Station Special Task Force, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

¶15

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Vinod Sharma’, who had reported that when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source a white colour ‘Volkswagen Polo’ car, bearing registration No.PB10-DF-9613, was intercepted and petitioner was arrested and from his possession, 1 kg of Heroin was recovered.

¶16

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.21 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-33455-2025 (O&M) 2

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

¶19

Arguments addressed on behalf of all the parties have been heard.

¶20

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has already suffered prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of approximately three years and four months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although this is third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, yet the same is maintainable in view of the fact that the total period of custody undergone by the petitioner is quite long, which amounts to infringement of his right of personal liberty and a speedy trial.

¶21

In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second petition for bail moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 14.11.2025 and from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, no significant progress in trial has taken place.

¶22

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, one of the significant factors to be taken into consideration is that, that the trial is taking place at a reasonable pace and

¶23

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.21 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-33455-2025 (O&M) 3

¶25

out of thirteen prosecution witnesses eight have already been examined and only five witnesses are left unexamined.

¶26

According to learned State Counsel otherwise also the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as he is facing prosecution in another case under NDPS Act, and in the abovementioned case, he was declared a proclaimed offender. As per learned State Counsel once the petitioner is a person, who has been declared a proclaimed offender, and faced a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A of IPC, he is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

¶27

9. The record has been perused carefully.

¶28

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, firstly most of the witnesses, as per list of witnesses, have already been examined, and thus, the trial is entering into its final stage; secondly , from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, no significant change in circumstances has taken place and thirdly , the petitioner does not have a clean antecedents. In addition to above, the filing of FIR against the petitioner under Section 174A of IPC shows that at one point of time, he was even declared a proclaimed offender.

¶29

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that no fresh ground for maintaining the instant petition, which is third petition for bail, is made out and the present petition for bail being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed , accordingly.

¶30

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.21 21:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-33455-2025 (O&M) 4

¶32