CRM-M/27293/2026 of JASWINDER SINGH @ NIKKA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 13 August 2026

1. This petition shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-27293- 2026 titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh @ Nikka Vs. State of Punjab’ and CRM-M- 22464-2026 titled as ‘Jaskaran Singh @ Jassi Vs. State of Punjab’ as they arise out of the same FIR.

2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.136 dated 28.07.2025 under Section 21(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29/25 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab. KUSUM

::2:: 2 The brief facts of the case are that Jaswinder Singh @ Nikka (petitioner in CRM-M-27293-2026), Jaskaran Singh @ Jassi (petitioner in CRM-M-22464-2026) and Mohit were apprehended while travelling in a car bearing No. PB-08-CY-1515 which was owned and driven by Mohit. The recovery of 500 grams of heroin came to be effected from the dashboard of the said vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they were co- passengers and cannot be said to be in a conscious possession of the contraband when the recovery had been effected from dashboard of the car owned and driven by Mohit. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Prahlad Singh Versus State of Haryana, (2020) 2 RCR (Criminal) 597, Jorawar Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-23804-2020 decided on 16.08.2021 and Nirbhay Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-48617-2018 decided on 13.11.2018 to contend that when the recovery is being affected from one of the accused riding a two wheeler then the other accused cannot be held to be liable as he cannot be said to be in conscious possession at least for the purposes of the decision of the bail application.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel admits that the contraband was recovered from the dashboard of the car owned and driven by Mohit but contends that it cannot be said that the petitioners who were co- passengers were unaware of the contents of the dashboard of his car. Thus, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail.

7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. KUSUM

::3:: In the case of Prahlad Singh's case (supra), the bag was in possession of the pillion rider and the driver of the motorcycle was granted the concession of bail. In the case of Jorawar Singh's case (supra), the petitioner who was a pillion rider was granted the concession of bail, though the driver-Jagsir Singh had also been granted bail. In the case of Nirbhay Singh's case (supra), the petitioner who was driving the motorcycle was granted bail when the recovery was effected from the co-accused Hira Singh, who was a pillion rider and holding a plastic bag.

6. Coming back to the facts of the present case, as has already been mentioned hereinabove, the contraband was recovered from the dashboard of the car being driven by Mohit and it would be a matter of adjudication during Trial as to whether the petitioners were in conscious possession of the same or not. Further, most importantly they are not named as accused in any other case of a similar nature. Therefore, a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that they have not committed an offence and are not likely to commit one in future can be recorded.

7. In view of the above, as also the fact that the petitioners are not accused in any other FIR of a similar nature, without adverting to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.136 dated 28.07.2025 under Section 21(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29/25 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab KUSUM

::4:: subject to their furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

9. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

10. In addition, the petitioners (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioners from Trial without sufficient cause.

11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

August 13, 2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM