Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support

Bail to D.S.P of Punjab Police in drug trafficking case – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

On 6 Feb 2023, P&H High Court granted bail, in case titled Lakhbir Singh vs State, to D.S.P of Punjab Police in drug trafficking case.

Three petitions seeking grant of regular bail have been filed on behalf of Lakhbir Singh, Surjit Singh, and Pishora Singh in a case registered against them under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with Sections 29 and 59 of the NDPS Act and Sections 7, 7(a), and 8(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

Surjit Singh found in possession of 900 grams of 'opium' on 30.6.2022 leading to the lodging of FIR No. 62 on the same date.Surjit Singh discloses during custodial interrogation on 2.7.2022 that he used to purchase 'opium' from Pishora Singh, who is apprehended on 3.7.2022, with 250 grams of 'opium' recovered from him. Pishora Singh discloses that he had paid Rs. 10 lacs to co-accused Hira Singh to avoid being nominated as an accused in the case and that the amount was concealed in a box of a bed in Hira Singh's house. Though Hira Singh was not arrested, Rs. 9.97 lacs were recovered from his house on the same day. Pishora Singh makes another disclosure on 5.7.2022 that he contacted petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh through Nishan Singh to avoid being nominated as an accused in the case. He reveals that a deal was settled for Rs. 10 lacs and that he had paid the amount recovered from Hira Singh's house. Lakhbir Singh, Nishan Singh, and Hira Singh were also nominated as accused on 6.7.2022 vide G.D. No. 22. Lakhbir Singh and Hira Singh were arrested on 6.7.2022 and 7.7.2022, respectively.

Petitioner Surjit Singh argues that he has been falsely implicated and that even if the allegations in the FIR are true, only 900 grams of 'opium' can be attributed to him, which is a non-commercial quantity. Therefore, he should be granted bail as he is not involved in any other case.

Petitioner Pishora Singh argues that the 250 grams of 'opium' and the Rs. 1 lakh attributed to him cannot be considered drug money. Additionally, the Rs. 9.97 lakh allegedly recovered at his instance was found at Hira Singh's house and not his, and Hira Singh has already been granted bail. Hence, Pishora Singh should be granted bail as well.

Petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh claims that he is a victim of departmental jealousies and that there is no evidence to connect him with the drug-peddling allegations other than the disclosure statements that some money was to be paid to him. He also points out that he is not involved in any other case except for one other case that came up after the present FIR.

The state opposed the bail on the grounds that the drug peddling racket was being carried out with the help of petitioner DSP Lakhbir Singh's protection, for which he was supposed to receive money. The amount of Rs. 9.97 lacs were recovered from the house of co-accused Hira Singh, which was supposed to be paid to petitioner Lakhbir Singh, indicating his complicity. The police have also retrieved some audio recordings from Hira Singh's mobile phone, which includes a conversation between him and Lakhbir Singh regarding passing on money, suggesting their involvement in the case.

The High Court has granted bail to all three petitioners, Lakhbir Singh, Surjit Singh, and Pishora Singh, who were accused in a drug trafficking case. The court observed that the recovery of contraband from Surjit and Pishora substantiates the allegations against them, but since the recovered amount was non-commercial, they deserve the concession of bail. Lakhbir Singh was accused based on a disclosure statement made by Pishora Singh, which mentioned an amount of Rs. 10 lacs that was to be paid to Lakhbir Singh. However, since no money was recovered from him and he has been in jail for seven months without charges being framed, the court held that he is entitled to the concession of bail. The court clarified that the observations made are only for the purpose of considering bail and are not an expression of the petitioners' innocence.

Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:43 AM
149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:43 AM
Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:42 AM
Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:42 AM
Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:38 AM
ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute
  • by sayum
    12 March 2026 6:34 AM
Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court