Gurdeep Singh @ Deep vs State Of Punjab

Surya Partap Singh, J

1. This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No. 94 dated 25.04.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section(s) 22(B)(C) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as "NDPS Act" only, Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

The FIR of this case came into being on the report of 'ASI Balwinder Kumar' who had reported that on 24.04.2025 he had received a telephonic message from Inspector/SHO Police Station Sadar, that an illegal drug de-addiction centre had been set-up near Bus Stand village Samrai, and that a team of Medical Officer, SDM Phillaur, Tehsildar Nurmahal (Duty Magistrate) and DSP Cantt. Jalandhar was going to inspect the abovesaid premises. According to above named police officer when he reached the spot along with the above-mentioned team members, the team of Drug Inspector recovered 1005 tablets of RLAM 0.5 MG. (Alprazolam Tablets IP) and 1000 tablets of Panadol (Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets USP 100 MG) from the premises and seized the same.

It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of above mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, formal arrest of the accused and registration of FIR were completed and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of further investigation, accused 'Sukhjit Singh' suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he revealed the name of present petitioner as supplier of contraband.

Notice of motion.

Since advance notice has already been served, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

Heard.

It has been contended by leaned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of one month and seven days, and that the alleged recovery had taken place from co-accused who have already been accorded the benefit of bail. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that except the disclosure statement of co- accused there is no evidence against the petitioner, and therefore, in the present case the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the quantity of recovered contraband, recovered from the possession of co-accused of the petitioner, comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions, prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner.

To deal with the given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana' 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused.

Similarly, in the case of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.

Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused.

In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.

The record has been perused carefully.

A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one month and seven days;

ii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iii) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner, and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the instant case, qua the petitioner;

iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that due to delay in trial the fundamental right of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner, is being violated;

vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-

i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.