Bail Turns on Own 200 g Heroin Recovery, Not Co-Accused's 1 kg: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Published: 24 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a heroin case under the NDPS Act, judging him by the 200 g recovered on his own disclosure, not the 1 kg 200 g total the Additional Sessions Judge reached by adding a co-accused's separate 1 kg recovery (paras 7-8, 15). After recalling its earlier order in Sukhdev Singh on clubbing, the Court held Section 37 inapplicable to that non-commercial quantity and noted custody since 03.09.2022 (paras 13, 15-16).

Bail Turns on Own 200 g Heroin Recovery, Not Co-Accused's 1 kg: Punjab and Haryana High Court

File photo: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Photo: Nk8595 Source: Wikimedia Commons Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Kanwalpreet Singh alias Kanwal v. State of Punjab

CRM-M-58220-2022 (O&M)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Date of Decision: 20 January 2023
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 25, 29, 37; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 439, 482

Final Outcome

Petition allowed: regular bail on heavy bail/surety bonds before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate; the petitioner must give the SHO his address and telephone number, undertake to avoid drug-related illegal activity and report to the police station on the first Monday of every month until the trial ends (para 16).

Source Punjab and Haryana High Court, phhc.gov.in — order dated 20.01.2023

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

On clubbing, the Court reproduced Sukhdev Singh, recording that separate non-commercial recoveries cannot be clubbed to disentitle all the accused to bail (para 13).
The petitioner was judged by his own recovery memo of 200 g, not the 1 kg 200 g total used by the Additional Sessions Judge (paras 8, 15).
A non-commercial 200 g of heroin keeps out the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 15).
The order does not discuss Section 29, though the FIR invokes it (paras 3, 13-15).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FIR No. 188 of 21.08.2022 was registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act on a tip that the petitioner and a co-accused were together smuggling heroin (paras 3-5). The petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2022 and the co-accused at his instance; on their disclosures, 1 kg of heroin was allegedly recovered from the co-accused's farm house and 200 g from the petitioner's (paras 6-7). The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar refused bail on 18.11.2022, treating the 1 kg 200 g as recovered from the petitioner along with his co-accused and so commercial (para 8). The petitioner relied on separate places, times and recovery memos (para 9); the State cited three other cases and sought clubbing (para 11).

Court's Findings

On clubbing recoveries made from different accused, the Court turned to its earlier order in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and reproduced a passage recording that, where a non-commercial quantity is recovered separately from each accused, the recoveries cannot be clubbed to disentitle all of them to bail (para 13). An inquiry report had found the petitioner ‘innocent’ in one NDPS case and he was on bail in the other two FIRs, which the State did not refute (para 14). The Court then assessed the petitioner on his own recovery: under recovery memo Annexure P-4 it was 200 g of heroin, a non-commercial quantity, so the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply (para 15). Even otherwise, he had been in custody since 03.09.2022 (para 15). The order does not discuss Section 29, although the FIR invokes it, or the search-and-seizure objections (paras 3, 9, 13-15). In view of these facts and circumstances the Court allowed the petition, adding that nothing in the order is an observation on the merits (paras 16-17).

Legal Principle

Where contraband is recovered separately from each accused, the bail court may judge an accused by the quantity in his own recovery memo, as the Court did after recalling Sukhdev Singh on clubbing; if that quantity is non-commercial, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply (paras 13, 15).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This short bail order helps where a co-accused's recovery is added to push an accused into commercial quantity. Although the FIR invoked Section 29, the Court did not discuss conspiracy; after recalling Sukhdev Singh on clubbing, it judged the petitioner by his own recovery memo of 200 g and kept Section 37 out (paras 3, 13, 15). Bail papers should therefore show each recovery's place, date and memo (paras 7, 9), though the order is no ruling on Section 29. Related reading: Akhlak @ Vilsan (separate recoveries from co-accused not added together), Virendra Singh (no clubbing to deny default bail) and Vinod Yadav (Delhi: no clubbing without a Section 29 charge, which was absent there).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab CRM-M-53872-2021 (O&M), Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided on 27.04.2022
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9, 13
Cited by the petitioner against adding co-accused recoveries (para 9). On the issue of clubbing recoveries made from different accused, the Court reproduced a passage from this order, recording that where non-commercial quantities are recovered separately from each accused, the recoveries cannot be clubbed together to disentitle all the accused to bail (para 13).