Allowed

Gurpreet v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2026CRM-M/35398/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought under Section 483 BNSS for heroin recovery of 256.13 grams, marginally above non-commercial quantity. Petitioner implicated only via co-accused's disclosure statement and had undergone over six months' custody with no witnesses examined. Bail granted subject to conditions including passport deposit and monthly affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and depositing his passport.

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

CRM-M-35398-2026

132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-35398-2026

Gurpreet

….Petitione r

versus

State of Har y ana

….Responden t

Date of Decision: July 22, 2026 Date of Uploading: July 22, 2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶13

Present: - Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶14

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Se n ior DAG Haryana.

¶15

¶16

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Present petition has been filed u n der Section 483 of the Bharatiy a Nagarik Sur a ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ B NSS’) (corresponding to Sectio n 439 Cr. P.C.) for grant of regular bail to th e petitioner, in case bearing FI R No.391 date d 12.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sectio n 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropi c Substances Act, 1985 (for shor t ‘NDPS Act’) (Sections 27-A and 29 of the N D PS Act added later on), at Polic e Station City D abwali, District Dabwali, Harya n a.

¶18

The gravamen of the FIR in q uestion pertains to recovery o f 256.13 gram s of Heroin. 3. Learned counsel for the petitione r has iterated that the petitioner i s in custody s ince 27.12.2025. Learned cou n sel has further submitted tha t mandatory p r ovisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complie d

¶19

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶20

¶21

CRM-M-35398-2026

¶22

with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from co-accused of the petitioner is of 256.13 grams of Heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 06 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶23

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶25

The petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 02.05.2026. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. As per prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold

¶26

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶27

¶28

CRM-M-35398-2026

¶29

limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial.

¶30

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab , passed in CRM-M65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus:

¶31

“ 6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. ”

¶32

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶33

¶34

CRM-M-35398-2026

¶35

6.2. It is also not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner is 256.13 grams of Heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-412422019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act.

¶36

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

¶37

6.3. As per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06 months and 23 days.

¶38

6.4. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the

¶39

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶40

¶41

CRM-M-35398-2026

¶42

FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶43

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶44

In view of above, the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

¶45

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

¶46

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶47

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

¶48

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

¶49

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of

¶50

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶51

¶52

CRM-M-35398-2026

¶53

his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

¶54

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶55

Ordered accordingly.

¶56

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶57

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

¶58

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶59

July 22, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶60

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

Gurpreet v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Princepal Singh Alias Prince Vs State of Punjab

Monu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashwani Kumar @ Achchi & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Hakmuddin and Others Vs Tahir

Gurveer Singh @ Gurvir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana