Gurpreet Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.175 dated 24.11.2025, under Sections 15, 21, 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (offender under Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) (offence under Section 111 of BNS and 27-A of NDPS Act added on 16.01.2026 and under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Khanna, District Ludhiana.

¶14

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 10 grams of heroin, 5 kg 600 grams of poppy husk, one country-made pistol, and ₹2,000/- alleged to be drug money.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

¶16

JATIN 2026.07.15 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-9600-2026 -2-

¶18

is in custody since 30.11.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question, primarily on account of his antecedents. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for hypertension when he was arrested. It has further been contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been scrupulously complied with and, therefore, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime ground set up by the police for the recovery of ₹2,000/- as drug money is the petitioner's confessional statement, which is inadmissible in law. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶19

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 13.07.2026. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶21

The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 30.01.2026. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. The contraband allegedly recovered for the FIR in question i.e. 10 grams of heroin, 5 kg 600 grams of poppy husk, one country-made pistol, which is non-commercial quantity and, thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in this case. The State has sought to invoke the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act on

¶22

JATIN 2026.07.15 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-9600-2026 -3-

¶24

the basis of the recovery of Rs. 2,000/-, which, according to the prosecution, constitutes drug money. The veracity of the said allegation shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

¶25

As per the custody certificate dated 13.07.2026 the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 7 month and 9 days & is shown to be involved in other FIR(s)case. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶26

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial

¶27

JATIN 2026.07.15 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-9600-2026 -4-

¶29

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶34

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶35

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

¶36

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

¶37

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

¶38