High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 0136

Jarmanpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 September 2026 · Citation: 2026:PHHC:123419

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Vashisth, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-38485-2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 681 words

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of Petitioner(s)FIR No.DateSection(s)Police StationDistrict
Jarmanpreet Singh, aged about 22 years8601.04.202621, 27-A, 61, 85 of NDPS ActJandialaAmritsar Rural
2.

As per the allegations, petitioner is involved in financing and harbouring offenders engaged in drug trafficking. It is further alleged that on 01.04.2026, at about 8:00–8:30 p.m., at the outskirts of village Makhanvindi, within the area of Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, petitioner was apprehended, while being in conscious possession of heroin weighing 8 grams, along with drug money amounting to Rs.600/-.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is inside jail since 01.04.2026, and has, undergone incarceration for a period of approximately five months. It is further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4.

Learned counsel further submits that, apart from the present case, no case under the NDPS Act involving any similar activity has been registered against the petitioner in the past. It is also submitted that petitioner is a young person aged about 22 years, and the alleged recovery of 8 grams of heroin is only 3 grams above the prescribed quantity of 5 grams, constituting small quantity. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

5.

In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 04 months and 30 days period inside jail.

6.

On the other hand, learned State counsel is unable to dispute any of the factual assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court today, including the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner. However, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.

7.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.

8.

Undoubtedly, petitioner is aged about 22 years and quantity allegedly recovered from his possession is only 3 grams above the prescribed small quantity. Being a young boy, petitioner is required to be afforded a chance to rehabilitate himself, by taking recourse of reformation and reintegration into the society.

9.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the petitioner and the factors noticed here above, particularly the period of incarceration already undergone by him, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, for an indefinite period. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

10.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

11.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

12.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

13.

Petition stands disposed of.