Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-4569-
4569-2026
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-4569-
4569-2026
Satnam Singh
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of Decision:
Decision: February 03,
03, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 03,
03, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Ms. Kadambari Bhan, Advocate and
Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present second 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, petitioner in case bearing FIR No No.29 dated 07.03.2025,, registered for the offences offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') (Sections 27--A, A, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, 2023 added later on), on) at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.
2. 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 900 intoxicant tablets (Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate) Sulphate weighing 55.8 grams from th the petitioner.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 ::: 2 CRM-
CRM-M-4569- 4569-2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025. Learned counsel iterated that earlier, vide order dated 13.10.2025, the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim regular bail for a period of 01 month and upon availing the said benefit, the petitioner has surrendered back to the custody in time. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is of 900 intoxicant tablets (Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate) weighing 55.8 grams, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 09 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel submits that apart from the said contraband, an amount of Rs.20,000/-, as drug money, has also been recovered from co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel has not controverted the factum of the petitioner having 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 ::: 3 CRM-
CRM-M-4569- 4569-2026 surrendered back to the custody in time after availing concession of interim regular bail, earlier, granted by this Court. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 02.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 28.05.2025. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 01 has been examined fully and 01 has been examined in part till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. The drug money alleged to have been recovered, in this case, is from co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 900 intoxicant tablets (Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate) weighing 55.8 grams, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. The rival 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 ::: 4 CRM-
CRM-M-4569- 4569-2026 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. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 02.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 09 months and 24 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). 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.
In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 ::: 5 CRM-
CRM-M-4569- 4569-2026 6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. Though, the first petition filed by the petitioner was for grant of regular bail, but since learned counsel for the petitioner had pressed the plea only qua interim regular bail for a period of one month, therefore, this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2025, had disposed of the said petition as such. Concededly, after availing the aforesaid concession, the petitioner has surrendered back to the custody in time.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone 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.
(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.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 ::: 6 CRM-
CRM-M-4569- 4569-2026 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE February 03, 03, 2026 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 02:07:13 :::