Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

By virtue of the second petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No. 9 dated 19.01.2022 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana, has prayed for grant of bail.

¶15

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on the basis of suspicion, a police team headed by Inspector Karanvir Singh, conducted a raid at the medical store being run by Harpreet Singh (Petitioner) under the name and style of Bhatia Medicos. On checking the said medical store, petitioner was caught red handed while keeping in his illegal possession 80 tablets (36 intoxicant tablets of Etima MD 0.25, 18 intoxicant tablets of Clovidol-100 SR, 10 intoxicant tablets of Tramaturst SR-100, 6 intoxicant tablets of Phenobarbitone Gardenal and 10 intoxicant tablets of Petril MD 0.5) (Commercial Quantity), weighing about 4.2 gms of Etizolam, without any licence or permit. After the statutory formalities were completed, FIR was lodged.

¶16

Petitioner/accused who was arrested at the site on 19.01.2022 moved an application for grant of interim bail before the learned Additional

¶17

HAMANT 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-36250-2025 2 Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The same was granted vide order dated 01.02.2022 with condition that petitioner will surrender before the trial Court if contents of salt falls within the ambit of ‘Commercial Quantity’. On

¶19

culmination of investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court on 03.09.2022.

¶20

Based on the report of Chemical Examiner, as per which out of five salts, four were listed in schedule appended along with the NDPS Act and quantity was ‘Commercial’, the interim bail of the petitioner was cancelled and he was arrested on 07.10.2024.

¶21

Petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. The same was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2024. The first bail petition filed by petitioner before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.04.2025.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Police team did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 52-A of the Act. Further the falsity of the case set up by the prosecution is apparent from the fact that despite the alleged recovery of contraband was effected from busy public place but no efforts were made by IO to join any independent person as a ‘witness’ to the case proceedings.

¶23

Continuing further, learned counsel submits that on completion of investigation, challan was filed on 03.09.2022 and petitioner was chargesheeted on 14.03.2023. But till date, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined, thus, likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. Hence, further incarceration of petitioner in custody,

¶24

HAMANT 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

3

¶26

CRM-M-36250-2025

¶27

would not serve any useful purpose and would also be violative of his Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Towards the end, learned counsel contends that petitioner, whose past antecedents are quite clean (being not involved in any other criminal case), deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour by extending him the concession of bail. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.

¶29

Status report dated 30.10.2025 by way of affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Bhanot, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, has been placed on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that contraband recovered from the petitioner is ‘Commercial Quantity’. In view of the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner, as per learned State counsel the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in the provision are satisfied. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

¶31

Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024 , decided on 23.04.2024, it was held as under:-

¶32

“The allegations against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 and 2022. The third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶34

HAMANT 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-36250-2025 4

¶36

respondent State.

¶37

Considering the fact that the contraband article is a poppy straw although he has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.”

¶38

Further in Chitta Bishwas @ Shubash Vs. State of West Bengal Law Finder Doc Id# 1938935 , considering the duration of custody and progress in trial, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to an accused/appellant who was found in possession of 46 bottles of PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.

¶39

In Md Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Aliul Vs. State of West Bengal Law Finder Doc Id# 2734487 , Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to an accused, involved in a case under Section 21(c)/27A of NDPS, considering custody period and similarity with other accused, whose bail had been allowed.

¶40

Similarly in Devrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal Law Doc Finder Id # 2734476, on the ground of prolonged custody and parity with other accused, co-accused Davrata, who was allegedly caught keeping in his possession 290 bottles of PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup (Commercial quantity) was granted the concession of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶41

In Santarul Islam Vs. State of West Bengal,Law Finder Doc Id# 2735329 , Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner who was also caught keeping in his illegal possession of PHENSYDRYL Cough Syrup (on the ground of prolonged custody and nature of contraband).

¶42

Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that HAMANT Constitutional liberty must override the statutory embargo. Guided solely by 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

5

¶44

CRM-M-36250-2025

¶45

the said principle and considering that the possibility of completion of trial in near future is quite remote, petitioner who has not been involved in any other case of like nature and has been in custody since 07.10.2024 deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour, for the likelihood of completion of trial is quite remote as out of 10 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date. The Court is, thus, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, his (P) further incarceration in custody would not serve any purpose. Resultantly, in view of discussion made herein above, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

HAMANT 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-36250-2025

6

�� !��

��"��#��

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶60

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶61

	(AARADHN JU	A SAWHNEY) DGE
21.01.2026
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable : Yes	/ No

¶62

HAMANT 2026.01.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh 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

Manoj Kumar Vs Rajveer Rattan and Anr.

Orjan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Abhishek Singh Vs Brijpal Singh

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Shamsher Singh Alias Dani Vs State of Haryana