Parminderpreet Singh Alias Baia Vs State of Punjab

By virtue of the second petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No. 58 dated 05.05.2022 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 21(C), 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Mohkampura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, has prayed for grant of bail.

¶16

Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

¶17

On 05.05.2022 based on a chance recovery, Police team headed by Inspector Shaminderjit Singh seized 270 grams of Heroin (contraband falls within ‘Commercial’ Quantity) from possession of a person who introduced himself as Parminderpreet Singh @ Baia (present petitioner), son of Umesh Kumar, resident of House No.897, Dimpe Wali Gali, Shant Nagar, Rayya, Amritsar. After the statutory formalities were complied with, FIR was lodged.

¶18

On culmination of investigation, challan was prepared and filed

¶19

in the Court on 28.10.2022.

¶20

Petitioner/accused who was arrested on 05.05.2022 moved an

¶21

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-54030-2025

¶23

2

¶24

application for grant of bail before the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar. The same was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2022. The first bail petition filed by petitioner before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2023.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as no recovery has been effected from him. The Police team did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 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.

¶26

Continuing further, learned counsel submits that on completion of investigation, challan was filed on 28.10.2022 and petitioner was chargesheeted on 29.09.2023. Since the disposal of Ist petition, trial has proceeded on a snail’s pace and till date, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, thus, likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. Hence, further incarceration of petitioner in custody, would not serve any useful purpose and would also be violative of his Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Towards the end, learned counsel contends that petitioner, who has been in custody since 05.05.2022 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.

¶28

Status report dated 14.11.2025 by way of affidavit of Inspector Harparkash Singh, P.S. Mohkampura, Amritsar has been placed on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail on the

¶29

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-54030-2025 3 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. Further, the fact that he is involved in one another criminal case (FIR No.14 dated 07.02.2018 under Sections 379/411 IPC and Section 22 of NDPS Act), no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.

¶31

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

¶32

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:-

¶33

“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.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State.

¶35

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.”

¶36

Further in Chitta Bishwas @ Shubash Vs. State of West Bengal

¶37

Law Finder Doc Id# 1938935 , considering the duration of custody and

¶38

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-54030-2025 4 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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).

¶43

In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586 , Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground that he had been in custody for a long period and the possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future was remote.

¶44

It is, thus, clear that criminal antecedents by themselves, is not a legal ground to deny the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases where the accused-petitioners are in custody for a long period.

¶45

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-54030-2025

¶47

5

¶48

Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that Constitutional liberty must override the statutory embargo. Guided solely by the said principle and considering that the possibility of completion of trial in near future is quite remote, petitioner who has been in custody since 05.05.2022 deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour, for the likelihood of completion of trial is quite remote as out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have 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 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-54030-2025

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

	(AARADHN JU	A SAWHNEY) DGE
03.02.2026
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable : Yes	/ No

¶64

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parminderpreet Singh Alias Baia v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminderpreet Singh Alias Baia 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

Rohit Sharma Alias Labha Vs State of Punjab

Rohtash Singh @ Tasha @ Rohtas Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Alias Mela Vs State of Haryana and Another

Deepak Kumar Vs Ut Chandigarh

Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman Vs State of Punjab

Mirgank Soni @ Mirgank @ Kaku Vs State of Haryana