Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi Vs State of Punjab

Th i s is the first petition filed u n der Section 483 of the Bhara t iya Nagarik Surak s ha Sanhita, 2023, praying fo r the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in c a se arising out of FIR No. 11 d ated 02.02.2025, registered u n der Sections 21(c), 2 3 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 19 8 5 and Sections 10, 11 and 12 o f the Air Craft Act, 1 9 34, at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab. 2. As per the prosecution version, on 0 1.02.2025 at about 4:57 PM, Head Constable Azfarul Haque of 27 Battalion BS F , BOP Chandu Wadala, while on duty, heard a h u mming sound of a drone in th e depth area near the border. U p on noticing the su s picious sound, the BSF team m oved towards the direction of the drone. It is alle g ed that at about 5:15 PM, the s u spected drone dropped a pack e t at the spot, wher e upon the BSF personnel rus h ed to the location and found the present accuse d Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi along with co-accused Amandeep Singh present there under suspicious cir c umstances. Both persons w ere apprehended o n the spot, and upon checki n g, they were allegedly foun d in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-46007-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶16

possession of a packet containing 550 grams o f heroin. The information regar d ing the recovery w a s immediately conveyed to the concerned police station. The c ase of the prosecu t ion is that the said heroin wa s smuggled through a drone f r om across the Int e rnational Border and that the accused/petitioner was foun d in conscious poss e ssion of the recovered contraba n d at the time of apprehension. 3. It i s contended by learned counse l for the petitioner that the alle g ed recovery was e f fected from agricultural fields where the drone had dropped the packet and that the said fields do not belong t o the petitioner but belong to o ne Harbhajan Singh. On this basis, it is argued that since the land in question is not owned or possessed by the petitioner, he canno t be fastened with criminal liab i lity for the alleged r ecovery, and thus he deserves t h e concession of regular bail.

¶17

Notice of motion. 5. M r . Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punj a b accepts notice on behalf of the respondent –St a te. He opposes the petition a n d submits that serious allegations have been leve l led against the present petitio n er Sukhwinder Singh. It is arg u ed that he was fou n d in possession of heroin of c o mmercial quantity and is invol v ed in a case of cr o ss-border smuggling through d r one near the International Bor d er, which is a gr a ve and serious offence affect i ng national security. It is fur t her submitted that t he petitioner has undergone c u stody of only about one year a nd twenty days a n d that the main prosecution w itnesses are yet to be exami n ed. Therefore, in vi e w of the seriousness of allegations and stage of trial, the petiti o ner does not deserv e the concession of bail.

¶18

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Co u rt finds no merit in the prese n t petition. Even if, for the sak e of argument, it is a ssumed that the fields in question belong to Harbhajan Singh, s till TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-46007-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶20

there are specif i c and direct allegations that the p etitioner Sukhwinder Singh, al o ng with his co-acc u sed, was apprehended at the sp o t and upon his search the afore s aid contraband was recovered. Thus, the recovery i s attributed directly to the petiti o ner and not merely to the place of occurrence. Th e quantity allegedly recovered i s a commercial qu a ntity, which attracts the rigou r s of the NDPS Act. Furtherm o re, material prosec u tion witnesses are yet to be e xamined and the trial is still a t a crucial stage.

¶21

Co n sidering the gravity of allega t ions, nature of recovery, statu t ory restrictions app l icable to offences involving co m mercial quantity, and the stag e of trial, no ground is made out to grant regular ba i l to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present regular b ail application stands dismisse d .

¶22

However, it is clarified that any o b servation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be construed as an expression on t h e merits of the case at trial.

¶23

Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶24

February 23, 20 2 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whether s peaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi 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

Kunal Golchha Vs State of Punjab

Gurmilap Singh Vs State of Punjab

Lakhvir Singh Alias Lakha Vs State of Punjab

Randeep Vs State of Haryana

Govind Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurjinder Singh Sabbi Vs State of Punjab