CRM-M/15539/2026 of GURDEV SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 23 July 2026

1. The present first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS") has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.0124 dated 01.07.2025, registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (subsequently Sections 29, 15-C, of the NDPS Act were added), at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab, during the pendency of trial.

2. As per the prosecution, on 01.07.2025, ASI Harjinder Singh, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran. When the police party reached near the bus stand of village Boparai, a secret informer informed the police that a truck bearing registration No. PB-02-EF-9547, driven by Gurdev Singh son of Upkar Singh, along with Gurpreet Singh son of Pargat Singh travelling as its conductor, was transporting onions under which poppy husk (doda post) had been concealed. The informer further disclosed that a black Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. PB-88-7587, driven by the present petitioner KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

Gursewak Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, with co-accused Gurdev Singh son of Salwinder Singh travelling therein, was accompanying the truck and that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, were engaged in the illicit trafficking of poppy husk. Acting upon the secret information, the police laid a naka, apprehended the accused persons, effected recovery of the alleged contraband, and registered the present FIR. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was merely driving the truck in question and that the allegation regarding his conscious possession of, or knowledge about, the alleged contraband concealed beneath the onion bags is a matter of evidence to be established during the course of trial. It is submitted that the prosecution is required to prove the petitioner's conscious possession and involvement by leading cogent and admissible evidence, and the mere fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle cannot, by itself, justify his continued incarceration. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 01.07.2025. The investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is argued that the entire prosecution case now rests upon the evidence collected during investigation, the admissibility and evidentiary value whereof shall be examined by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial.

4. Notice of motion. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State and has placed on record the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 5.1 Learned State counsel opposes the grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, was found in conscious possession of a commercial quantity, i.e. 510 kilograms of poppy husk (doda post). It is further contended that the petitioner was driving the truck from which the contraband was allegedly recovered and was actively involved in its transportation in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. Learned State counsel further submits that the recovery being of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions envisaged therein.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have been driving the truck from which 510 kilograms of poppy husk (doda post) was recovered. The said quantity is much above the notified commercial quantity of 50 kilograms and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence. However, having regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the nature of the recovery and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is unable to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The fact that the KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh investigation stands concluded and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court, by itself, cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which are matters for appreciation by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial and cannot be adjudicated conclusively at this stage. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the trial.

8. However, it is well settled that the right to speedy trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having remained in custody for a considerable period, cannot be detained indefinitely. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and ensure examination of material witnesses at the earliest, in accordance with law. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh