Punjab and Haryana High Court Allows Bail in Drug Case Involving Alleged Firearm Recovery

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 10.11.2026

Punjab and Haryana High Court Allows Bail in Drug Case Involving Alleged Firearm Recovery

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged recovery of heroin, a pistol, and live cartridges from a co-accused, noting that no recovery was made from the petitioner herself.

Case background

The petition concerned FIR No. 64 dated 1 April 2026, registered at Dinanagar Police Station, District Gurdaspur. The FIR invoked Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, a police team led by ASI Ramesh Kumar was patrolling near village Gandhian in the early hours of 1 April 2026 when it saw co-accused Gurwinder Singh, alias Gindu, approaching on foot. The prosecution alleged that, on noticing the police party, he attempted to move towards a dirt path but was apprehended.

The police alleged that a black waxen or plastic envelope containing heroin was recovered from him. The recovered substance, including the envelope, was recorded as weighing 260 grams. During a further search, police also alleged recovery of a pistol, a magazine, and five live cartridges from the pocket of his track pants. The co-accused was unable to produce a licence or other authority for possession of the firearm and ammunition, according to the order.

How the petitioner was implicated

The petitioner was not arrested at the place of the alleged recovery. She was subsequently named during the investigation on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement made by the co-accused. She was arrested on 28 April 2026.

The prosecution treated the alleged 260 grams of heroin as a commercial quantity and opposed regular bail under the stricter provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It argued that the petitioner had been specifically implicated during the investigation and that the allegations were serious.

Petitioner’s case for bail

Counsel for the petitioner argued that she had been falsely implicated and that no heroin, firearm, or ammunition had been recovered from her. The defence maintained that the alleged recovery was exclusively from the co-accused and that the petitioner’s nomination depended only on his disclosure statement.

The petitioner also relied on the following circumstances:

• No direct recovery: The alleged 260 grams of heroin, pistol, and five live cartridges were recovered from the co-accused, not the petitioner.
• Quantity dispute: The stated weight included the packaging material, while the actual net quantity of heroin had not been established.
• Parity with co-accused: Another co-accused, Victoria, against whom similar allegations were made and from whom no recovery was effected, had already been granted regular bail.
• Custody and family circumstances: The petitioner had been in custody since 28 April 2026 and is a woman with two minor children.
• Investigation status: The investigation was substantially complete and no additional recovery was required from the petitioner.

Court’s observations

Justice Virinder Aggarwal noted that the alleged heroin, firearm, and ammunition had been recovered from the co-accused, while no recovery had been effected from the petitioner. The Court further recorded that the petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of the co-accused’s disclosure statement.

The Court held that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, as well as the issue of the actual net quantity of contraband after excluding the packaging material, would need to be examined during trial. These issues were not finally decided at the bail stage.

The Court also considered that the petitioner had remained in custody since 28 April 2026, the investigation was complete, she had two minor children, and a similarly placed co-accused had already received regular bail. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose.

Bail granted subject to conditions

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The release is subject to strict conditions, including:

1. The petitioner must not threaten, induce, or promise anything to any person connected with the case in order to prevent disclosure of facts before the Court or investigating agency.
2. She must not tamper with prosecution evidence or contact, influence, intimidate, or interfere with any prosecution witness.
3. She cannot leave India without prior permission of the trial court. If she possesses a passport, its details must be furnished to the investigating officer and trial court.
4. She must provide permanent and current correspondence addresses, supported by documentary proof. The investigating officer must verify the addresses within 48 hours of acceptance of bail bonds.
5. She must disclose her PAN, Aadhaar number, operative bank-account details, and immovable-property details, if any. Concealment or false information may be grounds for cancellation of bail.
6. Any change in residential address or mobile number must be notified in writing to the investigating officer and trial court within seven days.
7. She must not commit a similar offence while the trial is pending and must attend every hearing unless exempted by law. Breach of the conditions or unauthorized absence may lead to cancellation of bail and issuance of coercive process, including arrest warrants.

Significance of the order

The order does not decide whether the petitioner is guilty or innocent. It determines only that, based on the material available at the bail stage, conditional release was appropriate. The absence of any recovery from the petitioner, reliance on a co-accused’s alleged disclosure statement, the unresolved issue of net contraband quantity, and bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused were central to the Court’s decision.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi