IN THE 117 Palwinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 21(C) Act, 1985 at Police 2. The information received information, two Singh @ Jass, 4 kilograms of possession, along investigation, a that 1 kilogram accused Jaswant one Baljit Singh. THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72746 Date of decision: Singh @ Pinda VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi and Ms. Medha the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant third petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.246 dated 11.12.2020 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Police Station Lohian, District Jalan The FIR in the present case was registered received by the investigating agency. two persons, namely Rakesh Kumar Jass, were apprehended. Upon sea of heroin (2 kilograms each) along with a country-made pistol. disclosure statement was recorded ilogram of heroin had been sold by the Jaswant Singh, and a further quantity of Singh. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 72746-2025(O&M) decision: 26.02.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Medha Kaushal, Advocate Punjab. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 11.12.2020 registered under and Psychotropic Substances Jalandhar. registered on the basis of secret agency. Acting upon the said Kumar @ Kesha and Jaswinder search, a total quantity of was recovered from their pistol. During the course of recorded wherein it was alleged the aforesaid accused to co- of 500 grams had been sold to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.27 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 117 CRM-M-72746-2025(O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the two persons from whose possession the contraband was recovered, as well as the alleged recipients to whom the same was sold and the person from whom the contraband is stated to have been procured, have all been granted the concession of regular bail. He further contends that only 09 out of 17 witnesses have been examined so far and the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2020 and has already undergone an actual custody of 05 years and 02 months. He further contends that the petitioner is being portrayed as a kingpin of the narcotics network, notwithstanding that he was in jail during the relevant period and therefore, could not have participated in the transactions attributed to him. It is submitted that there exists no independent material linking the petitioner with the co-accused who were apprehended and that his implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement made by a co-accused while in custody. Learned counsel argues that such a disclosure statement, in the absence of any recovery effected pursuant thereto from the petitioner, is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to sustain his nomination. 4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner has extensive criminal antecedents. He, however, does not dispute that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner or at his instance and that the persons from whose possession commercial quantities of contraband were recovered have already been granted the concession of regular bail. The period of custody undergone by the petitioner as well as the stage of trial are also not disputed. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.27 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 117 CRM-M-72746-2025(O&M) 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner i.e. more than 05 years and noting that only 9 out of the 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far coupled with the fact that the case against the petitioner rests solely upon a disclosure statement, which is not corroborated by any recovery effected from him or at his instance and further bearing in mind the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and encompasses within its fold the right to a speedy trial I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7. The instant petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 26.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.27 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document