Balwinder Singh @ Mota v. State of Punjab

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Present 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 bearing FIR No.55 dated 29.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') (27-A & 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar.

¶2The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 14 grams of heroin and Rs.1,500/- cash, allegedly recovered from the co-accused namely Mahabir Singh @ Nahma. It is further the case of the petitioner that 10.10 gms of heroin and Rs.1,000/- were recovered from the petitioner.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the recovery from

the petitioner is 10.10 grams heroin, which is non-commercial in nature, and thus, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. He has further argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. 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, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 21.12.2025 in Court, 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 03.05.2025. The completion of investigation and the trial emanating therefrom, if occasion so arises, will take time. At this juncture, it is prima facie coming forth from the case put forth by the prosecution that alleged recovery from the petitioner is 10.10 grams of heroin, which is intermediate in quantity. Further, the invocation of Section 27A of NDPS Act is on account of alleged recovery of Rs.1,000/- shown to be as drug money, but the basis thereof is confessional statement of the present petitioner. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 3o o CRM-M-69613-2025o(O&M)o o

6.1.o o Inotheofactualomilieuoofotheocase,othisoCourtoisoofotheoconsideredo opinionothatofettersoofoSectiono37oofotheoNDPSoActohaveobeenometowithosooaso tooenlargeotheopetitioneroonobail.oItowouldobeoappositeotooreferoaojudgmentoofo thisoCourtoinoJaswinderoSinghoaliasoKalaoversusoStateoofoPunjabopassedoino CRM-M-33729-2025o(2025:PHHC:089161);otheorelevantowhereoforeadsothus:oo "14.o o Asoaosequiturotooabove-saidorumination,otheofollowingo postulatesoemerge:o

(I)o (i)o Aobailopleaoonomerits;oinorespectoofoanoFIRounderoNDPSo Actoofo1985oinvolvingooffence(s)ounderoSectiono19ooroSectiono 24o oro Sectiono 27-Ao thereofo ando foro offence(s)o involvingo commercialoquantity;oisoessentiallyorequiredotoomeetowithotheo rigour(s)oofoSectiono37oofoNDPSoAct.ooo o o (ii)oo Theorigour(s)oofoSectiono37oofoNDPSoActodoonotoapplyotoo aobailoplea(s)oonomedicaloground(s),ointerimobailoonoaccountoofo anyoexigencyoincludingotheoreasonoofodemiseoofoaocloseofamilyo relativeoetc.o o o o (iii)o Theo rigour(s)o ofo Sectiono 37o ofo NDPSo Acto paleo intoo obliviono wheno bailo iso soughto foro ono accounto ofo longo incarcerationoinoviewoofoArticleo21oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiao i.e.o whereo theo bail-applicanto haso sufferedo longo under-trialo custody,otheotrialoisoprocrastinatingoandofollyothereofoisonoto attributableotoosuchobail-applicant.ooo o II.o TheotwinoconditionsocontainedoinoSectiono37(1)(b)oofoNDPSoActo areo ino additiono too theo conditions/parameterso containedo ino Cr.P.C./BNSSooroanyootheroapplicableoextantolaw.oo o III.o TheotwinoconditionsocontainedoinoSectiono37(1)(b)oofoNDPSoActo areo cumulativeo ino natureo ando noto alternativeo i.e.o botho theo conditionsoareorequiredotoobeosatisfiedoforoaobail-pleaotoobeo successful.ooo o IV.o ForoconsiderationobyobailoCourtoofotheoconditionostipulatedoino Sectiono37(1)(b)(i)oofoNDPSoActoi.e.o"thereoareoreasonableo groundsoforobelievingothatoheoisonotoguiltyoofosuchooffence":o o

(i)o TheobailoCourtooughtotoosiftothroughoallorelevanto material,o includingo case-dairy,o exclusivelyo foro theo limitedopurposeoofoadjudicatingosuchobailoplea.o o

(ii)o Suchoconsideration,oconcerningotheoassessmento ofoguiltooroinnocence,oshouldonotomirrorotheosameodegreeo ofoscrutinyorequiredoforoanoacquittaloofotheoaccusedoato theofinaloadjudicationo&oculminationoofotrial.oo o

HIgh Court Chandigarh o o 4o o CRM-M-69613-2025o(O&M)o o

(iii)o Plea(s)oofodefenceobyoapplicant-accused,oifoany,o includingomaterial/documentsoinosupportothereof,omayo beolookedointoobyotheobail-Courtowhileoadjudicatingosucho bailoplea.ooo o V.o Foro considerationo ofo theo conditiono stipulatedo ino Sectiono 37(1)(b)(ii)oi.e.o'heoisonotolikelyotoocommitoanyooffenceowhileoono bail':o

(i)o Theo wordo 'likely'o oughto too beo interpretedo aso requiringoaodemonstrableoandosubstantialoprobabilityoofo re-offendingobyotheobail-applicant,oratherothanoaomereo theoreticaloone,oasonooCourtocanopredictofutureoconducto ofotheobail-applicant.oo o

(ii)o Theo entireo factualo matrixo ofo ao giveno caseo includingo theo antecedentso ofo theo bail-applicant,o roleo ascribedotoohim,oandotheonatureoofooffenceoareorequiredo toobeodelvedointo.ooHowever,otheoinvolvementoofobail-applicantoinoanotheroNDPS/otherooffenceocannotoipsoo factoo resulto ino theo conclusiono ofo hiso propensityo foro committingooffenceoinotheofuture.o o

(iii)o Theobail-Courtomay,oatotheotimeoofograntingobail,o imposeouponotheoapplicant-accusedoaoconditionothatoheo wouldosubmit,oatosuchoregularotimeoperiod/intervaloaso mayostipulatedobyotheoCourtograntingobail,oanoaffidavito beforeoconcernedoSpecialoJudgeoofoNDPSoCourt/Illaqao (Jurisdictional)oJudicialoMagistrate/concernedoPoliceo Station,otootheoeffectothatoheohasonotobeenoinvolvedoino commissionoofoanyooffenceoafterobeingoreleasedoonobail.oo Inotheofactsoofoaogivenocase,oimpositionoofosuchoconditiono mayobeoconsideredotoobeosufficientoforosatisfactionoofo conditionoenumeratedoinoSectiono37(1)(b)(ii).ooo o VI.oo Thereoisonoogainsayingothatotheonature,omodeoandoextentoofo exerciseoofopowerobyoaoCourt;owhileosatisfyingoitselforegardingo theoconditionsostipulatedoinoSectiono37oofoNDPSoAct;oshallo dependouponotheojudicialodiscretionoexercisedobyosuchoCourtoino theofactsoandocircumstancesoofoaogivenocase.oNooexhaustiveo guidelineso cano possiblyo beo laido downo aso too whato wouldo constituteo parameterso foro satisfactiono ofo requiremento undero Sectiono 37o (ibid)o aso everyo caseo haso itso owno uniqueo facts/circumstances.ooMakingosuchoanoattemptoisonothingobutoao utopianoendeavour.ooErgo,othisoissueoisobestoleftotootheojudicialo wisdomoandodiscretionoofotheoCourtodealingowithosuchomatter."o o

6.2.o o Asoperocustodyocertificateodatedo21.12.2025ofiledobyotheolearnedo Stateocounsel,otheopetitionerohasoalreadyosufferedoincarcerationoforoaoperiodoofo02o monthso&o19odays.oFurther,oasoperotheosaidocustodyocertificateotheopetitioneroiso

HIgh Court Chandigarh o o

stated to be involved in one more case pertaining to NDPS Act. 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.

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 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. 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)

JUDGE December 22, 2025 Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH o o o o o o o Dateoofodecision:o22.12.2025o o o o o o o oooooDateoofouploading:ooo23.12.2025o Balwinder Singh @ Mota ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Robindeep Singh Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.oBaljinderoSinghoSra,oAddl.oAG,oPunjab. *****