Taranpreet Singh Alias Taran Vs State of Punjab

P resent petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR 57 dated 27.04.2025, under Section 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Nawashahr, District SBS Nagar.

¶12

2 . As per the case of the prosecution, on 27.04.2025, an Alto car bearing registration No. PB-24E-8085 was intercepted at a naka established by the police party. Upon stopping the vehicle, petitioner, who was driving the car, disclosed his identity as Taranpreet Singh @ Taran, while the occupant seated beside him disclosed his name as Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha.

¶13

A black-coloured bag was found lying near the gear lever. On suspicion, the said bag was searched, resulting in the recovery of 12 injections containing Buprenorphine. The total quantity of the narcotic

¶14

RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-5443-2026

¶16

substance contained in the recovered injections was found to be 23.928 grams

¶17

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, aged 33 years, has never previously been found involved in any similar offence and, therefore, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act ought not to be applied with undue strictness. It is further contended that recovered quantity falls within the commercial category only because it exceeds the prescribed non-commercial quantity of 20 grams by a marginal difference of 3.928 grams.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in judicial custody for a period of more than one year and that trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. On these grounds, prayer has been made for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4 . On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was found in conscious possession of a commercial quantity of the contraband. It is argued that black-coloured bag containing the recovered injections was lying inside the car driven by the petitioner, near the gear lever. Therefore, petitioner cannot escape his involvement or culpability merely because the recovery was effected from the vehicle being driven by him.

¶20

Learned State counsel further submits that, out of a total of 12 prosecution witnesses, 06 have already been examined, 03 have been given up, and the remaining 03 witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶21

RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-5443-2026

¶23

6 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

¶24

7 . Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the petitioner is 33 years of age and has not been found involved in any other similar offence, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. It is also noticed that the black-coloured bag from which the contraband was allegedly recovered was found lying inside the vehicle, and whether the said bag belonged to co-accused Sukhjinder Singh, petitioner, or both of them, is a matter to be established during the course of the trial. Likewise, the question of the petitioner's conscious possession of the contraband is also an issue that is yet to be adjudicated by the trial Court.

¶25

Petitioner is stated to be a first-time offender, and at this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate his involvement in any other case under the provision of NDPS Act or any similar offence. In such circumstances, he deserves an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate, subject to appropriate conditions.

¶26

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶27

RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-5443-2026

¶29

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶30

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

¶31

10. Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶33

14.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶34

RASHMI 2026.07.16 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Taranpreet Singh Alias Taran v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taranpreet Singh Alias Taran 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vishal Alias Hathi Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Krishan Garg Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nishan Singh Vs State of Punjab