Dismissed

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026CRM-M/6295/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking regular bail for a narcotics charge. Despite arguments regarding false implication and lack of independent witnesses, the court denied bail due to the serious nature of the offence, commercial quantity, and statutory bars. It directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; regular bail denied; Trial Court directed to expedite trial within six months.

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-6295-2026

¶3

213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-6295-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026

¶5

PARAMJIT SINGH @ PAMMA ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

¶12

The present first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 374 dated 25.12.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added subsequently), at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur.

¶13

As per the prosecution, the present case was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police regarding involvement of the petitioner in possession of narcotic substance. It is alleged that on the relevant date, the police party apprehended the petitioner near the canal bridge of Village Mohan Ke Uttar, Ferozepur, while he was riding a motorcycle. During search, a black coloured polythene containing 400 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the left pocket of the black jacket worn by the petitioner. On the basis of the alleged recovery, the petitioner was arrested and the provisions of the NDPS Act were invoked. Subsequently, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added during investigation. After completion of investigation, KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

CRM-M-6295-2026

¶15

¶16

report under Section 193(2) BNSS was presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have been framed. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 25.12.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery was effected from him. It is contended that the petitioner was arrested from his residence and the alleged recovery of 400 grams of heroin has been planted upon him. Learned counsel submits that the entire prosecution version is concocted and the petitioner was not present at the alleged place of recovery.

¶18

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery is doubtful as no independent witness was joined despite the alleged recovery having been effected during broad daylight at a public place. It is argued that the absence of independent corroboration creates a serious doubt regarding the manner of recovery. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and the alleged recovery is a matter to be tested during trial. Learned counsel submits that to substantiate his plea of false implication, the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking preservation and production of call detail records and tower location details, but the prosecution failed to file a reply despite repeated opportunities, resulting in delay in the proceedings.

¶19

3.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, has clean conduct and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The investigation stands completed, challan has already been presented, charges have been framed and the petitioner is no longer required for any further investigation.

¶20

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-6295-2026 3

¶22

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2024 and out of the cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

¶23

3.4 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a well-educated person, has respectable antecedents and belongs to a respectable family. He undertakes to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court, shall not influence any witness or tamper with the evidence and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court during the pendency of trial. Accordingly, prayer is made for grant of regular bail.

¶24

Learned counsel further submits that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner violates the said mandate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶25

Notice of motion.

¶26

Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State and opposes the grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She submits that the petitioner has been booked in a serious offence under the NDPS Act involving recovery of 400 grams of heroin, which is commercial quantity. It is contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.

¶27

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the

¶28

record.

¶29

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-6295-2026

¶31

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the statutory bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the fact that the material witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶33

However, it is well settled that the right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having remained in custody for a considerable period, cannot be detained indefinitely. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and ensure examination of material witnesses at the earliest, in accordance with law, preferably within 06 months.

¶34

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶35

09.07.2026 kv

¶36

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.10 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma v. State of Punjab

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

Gurbhinder Singh Alias Bhinda Vs State of Punjab

Kulwinder Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kashyap Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Yudhveer Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kuldeep Singh @ Channu Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.