Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS and Arms Act Case on Parity Grounds

Case Name: Inderpal Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-13539-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition for regular bail, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of parity since similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court noted that although 500 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner, falling under commercial quantity and attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the custody period, absence of criminal antecedents, and comparable standing with other accused outweighed objections to bail at this stage. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) to conclude that strict statutory conditions must be applied reasonably and cannot result in punitive pre-trial detention.

Summary: The FIR was initially registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act after recovery of a foreign-made pistol suspected to have been dropped by a drone from Pakistan. During investigation, the petitioner’s name surfaced in disclosure statements given by co-accused, leading to his arrest on 21.05.2024. A subsequent recovery of 500 grams of heroin was made from him and Section 21-C and Section 29 NDPS Act were added. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, submitting that co-accused Jobanjit Singh @ Joban, Vishaldeep Singh and Shivraj Singh had already been granted regular bail. The State acknowledged the fact of parity and confirmed the petitioner had no other criminal involvement. The custody certificate reflected incarceration of 1 year, 5 months and 15 days as of 11.11.2025.

The Court examined the legal position on the application of Section 37 NDPS Act and quoted extensively from the Supreme Court observations, highlighting that prolonged incarceration and slow investigations could render pre-trial detention punitive. The Court observed that while the allegations were serious, the petitioner’s position was indistinguishable from co-accused already released.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The Court ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail subject to conditions, including furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate. It was clarified that nothing in the order shall be treated as an expression on merits.