Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-40024-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40024-2025
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 17.10.2025
Bikramjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
10 04.02.2024 SSOC, District 21/29 of NDPS Act
Amritsar
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 04.02.2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 1 kg Heroin from possession of Major Singh. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4. During the custodial interrogation of the accused Major Singh, he disclosed that he and petitioner used to receive consignment of Heroin being sent by Pakistani smugglers Billa and used to supply further to the parties as per directions of Billa; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection JYOTI SHARMA whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-40024-2025 petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
7. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
8. As per paragraph 13 of the status report, the contraband recovered from the main accused Major Singh was 1 kg of heroin and later on, on the disclosure statement of petitioner, 1.02 kg Heroin was recovered near border.
9. Dealing in 1.02 kg of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 1.02 Kg Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of 408.00% Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated Notification No. & date 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Heroin Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-40024-2025 Small Quantity < 5 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 0.005 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 0.25 Kg) 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985 821 (E) Sr. No. 2(xvi)(d) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic ****** Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses
(v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or Chemical Name one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
11. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petitioner, which is taken from paragraphs 12 to 14 of status report, which reads as follows:
"THE ROLE OF THE PETITIONER JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-40024-2025
12. That it is submitted that the accused Bikramjit Singh is involved in smuggling of heroin from Pakistan. He used to receive consignments of heroin through drone from Pakistani smuggler Billa. The accused Bikramjit Singh was nominated on disclosure statement of co-accused Major Singh who was arrested with conscious possession of 01 Kg of heroin. After arrest of petitioner Bikramjit Singh, he corroborated the disclosures of co-accused Major Singh. As a consequence of disclosure Bikramjit Singh, he led the police party and pointed out place near India-Pakistan border from where 1.02 Kg. (2 packets of 510 gms each) were recovered.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
13. That it is submitted that on the basis of the disclosure of co-accused Major Singh and his own admission, he was involved in illegal drug smuggling and peddling at the instance of Pakistan based smuggler. He accompanied with accused Major Singh who got dropped by drone 1.02 Kg of heroin near border. This consignment could not be found by both accused and they returned home. Later police party accompanied petitioner Bikramjit to place and could find out the consignment 1.02 Kg of heroin with the help of police party and BSF officials, clearly proving his complicity in the crime.
THE NAME AND TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE DRUG
i) Total 01 Kg of heroin was recovered from the personal search of co-accused Major Singh. The Diacetylmorphine and Diazepam were found present in the contents of the contrabands recovered from the accused Major Singh. The FSL Report no. 337/2024/Toxi/FSL/Pb, dated 22.03.2024 is annexed at A1.
ii) Total 1.02 Kg. of heroin was recovered from India-Pakistan border based on the disclosures of co-accused Major Singh and the petitioner Bikramjit Singh. The accused and present petitioner Bikramjit Singh, in consequence of his disclosure led the police party and pointed out the place of recovery. The Tramadol Hydrochloride was found present in the contents of the contraband recovered from this consignment. The FSL Report no. 100/2024/Toxi/FSL/Pb, dated 02.04.2024 is annexed at A2.
14. That it is respectfully submitted that keeping in view the totality of the facts and submissions made herein above, it is evident that the accused Bikramjit Singh was involved in contraband smuggling and peddling. The 1.02 Kg contraband was recovered on his disclosure and FSL report found Tramadol Hydrochloride in the recovered contraband. The quantity of the contraband recovered from the accused Bikramjit Singh is of commercial quantity, which attracts rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act. The present case FIR No. 10 dated 04.02.2024 is now pending for trial and charge has been framed by the learned trial court. The fact that petitioner has another criminal case proves that he is a habitual offender. As such, the accused Bikramjit Singh is not entitled to the relief of regular bail. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed."
12. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount sized in the current FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following precedent.
JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-40024-2025
13. In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 8557-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year six months in jail.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.
14. In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510- 2024, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender after one year and six months of custody who possessed 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as follows:
The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent-
State but no one has appeared for the State.
Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.
15. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner's pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage.
16. As per paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 07.02.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 30.09.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 07 months and 20 days.
17. In the entirety and given the penal provisions invoked vis-à-vis pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-40024-2025
18. The evidence collected might be, prima facie, sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient to deny bail.
19. Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the petitioner, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre- trial incarceration at this stage.
20. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
21. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000.
22. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged.
23. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
24. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
25. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-40024-2025 circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
26. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
27. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."
28. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences."
29. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.
JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-40024-2025
30. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
31. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
32. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
33. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."
34. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 17.10.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 8