Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Holds Continued Detention Violates Article 21 When Co-Accused Already Released
Case Name: Gurmeet Singh @ Gola v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 22, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-59482-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner Gurmeet Singh @ Gola in an NDPS case, observing that he had already undergone over one and a half years of custody and that his co-accused, from whom recovery was made, had been released on bail. Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and his implication was solely based on the disclosure statement of co-accused, which by itself was insufficient for prolonged detention. The Court held that continued incarceration, despite parity with bailed co-accused, amounted to violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 20 dated February 15, 2024, registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 21-C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged recovery of 310 grams of heroin from co-accused Lovepreet Singh, Sher Singh @ Shera, and Jaibir Singh @ Judge, while no recovery was made from the petitioner, whose name surfaced through their confessional statements. It was further contended that at the time of registration of the FIR, the petitioner was already in custody in another NDPS case (FIR No. 32 of 2023, PS SSOC Amritsar).
Counsel for the petitioner argued that his case stood on a stronger footing than that of co-accused Jaibir Singh @ Judge, who had already been granted regular bail by the High Court in CRM-M-47456-2025. The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was a habitual offender but could not dispute the fact of parity or the duration of custody.
Justice Moudgil observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for 1 year, 6 months, and 2 days, and that prolonged detention before trial, especially where guilt is unproven, undermines the presumption of innocence. Relying on Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, the Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception, stressing a humane and judicious approach to pre-trial detention. The Court further referred to Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 8523 of 2024, emphasizing that unreasonable delay in trial infringes Article 21. It also cited Baljinder Singh @ Rock v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-25914-2022, decided on March 2, 2023) to hold that antecedents in other cases cannot by themselves justify denial of bail if evidence in the present case does not warrant continued custody.
Decision: Granting bail, the High Court directed the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. Justice Moudgil clarified that the order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The petition was accordingly allowed.