Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akashdeep Singh Alias Arsh vs State Of Punjab on 27 October, 2025
CRM-M-37850-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.235
Case No. : CRM-M-37850-2025
Decided On : October 27, 2025
Akashdeep Singh @ Arsh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * *
Present : Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. :
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.226 dated 24.12.2024, under Sections 21(b) and 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as - NDPS Act) (Sections 21(c), 61/85 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.
Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2024, a person namely Aniket Verma was nabbed by police party during routine patrolling, with heroin weighing 192 grams and drug money of Rs.10,150/-. After completion of necessary formalities, the aforesaid FIR was registered and the said accused was arrested. During investigation, said Aniket Verma MONIKA 2025.10.28 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2025 2 named Joban and Babli while disclosing that the heroin in question was given to him by Joban and that said Joban and Babli were having 02 kg of heroin and two illegal pistols with them. So, Babli was also arrested on 27.12.2024 and she further disclosed that Joban along with his cousin namely Amritpal Singh @ Anshu, Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Bhola allured her to do business of heroin along with them. The aforesaid accused used to get heroin smuggled, keep it at her house and then sell it to customers. On 24.12.2024 also, she had given 200 grams heroin to Amritpal @ Anshu for delivering it to Aniket Verma, who was to give drug proceeds after selling the heroin but he was apprehended and all the above said accused fled away. However, accused namely Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban was arrested the same day, who disclosed about the complicity of Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Bhola and Anshu in the business of heroin, as narrated by Babli in her disclosure statement. All of them were arrested and 2.3 kg of heroin was recovered from Babli's house. On the basis of disclosure statements of all the aforesaid accused persons, some of their known persons namely Harman, Joshi, Jashan, Reshma were also nominated as co-accused and later, the actual names of above said Bhola, Harman, Joshi and Jashan were identified as Manjit Singh @ Preet @ Bhola, Harshpreet Singh @ Harman @ Hamma, Mandeep Singh @ Kaushal @ Joshi and Lovepreet Singh @ Jashan and it was also disclosed that elder brother of Joban namely Gurpreet Singh was also involved with them in the business of heroin. All these persons were accordingly nominated as co-accused in the present case vide GD No.44 dated 29.12.2024 and were arrested on 30.12.2024. MONIKA 2025.10.28 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2025 3
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. He was not named in the FIR and was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused namely Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban, which is not admissible in law. The petitioner had never been in contact with aforesaid Aniket Verma, from whom the recovery of contraband had been effected. Nothing had been recovered from the petitioner and he is in custody since long. He further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment dated 10.09.2025, passed by this Court in CRM-M-25094-2025, thereby granting benefit of regular bail to co-accused namely Harpreet Singh @ Happy.
Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the present bail petition while contending that allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He, along with other co-accused, was involved in smuggling of heroin and the present case involved recovery of commercial quantity of heroin, drug money and smuggled pistols. Such like persons do not deserve any leniency from the Courts. He further urged that if released on bail, the petitioner might influence the witnesses or further indulge in such like activities. However, he has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not been found to be involved in any other criminal case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
MONIKA2025.10.28 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2025 4
As per the allegations, 192 grams heroin along with drug money of Rs.10,150/- was recovered by the police party from co-accused Aniket Verma during routine patrolling. During investigation, name of the petitioner surfaced in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement made by other co-accused namely Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban, wherein he mentioned that the petitioner was also involved with him in drug peddling as he had given him 05 kg of heroin to be delivered to a person, as instructed by Bhola. He further disclosed that the petitioner used to go with him to border areas for lifting heroin and for this, he was being paid his share. However, no recovery of contraband had been effected from the present petitioner. No other material, except the disclosure statement of aforesaidi Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban, has been placed on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in question. As per the Status Report, the petitioner was not found involved in any other FIR.
As per the Custody Certificate dated 13.09.2025, which had already been placed on record, the petitioner had undergone custody of 08 months and 09 days, meaning thereby, he had undergone 09 months 23 days of custody till date. The trial of the case is going on. Culpability of the petitioner in the present case is a matter to be seen by the learned Trial Court during trial, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. No useful purpose is likely to be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds MONIKA 2025.10.28 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37850-2025 5 and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
October 27, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2025.10.28 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document