CRM-M-54181 IN THE H (237) SUKHRAJ SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. C Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 21 Act, 1985 (for s Bathinda. 2. As pe @ Arshi was appr well as drug mo conscious possess involvement of the 4181-2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH @ RAJA Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS P.K.S Phoolka, Advocate and Mr. C.S. Baahia, Advocate for the pet Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.12 ons 21(b) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs (for short “NDPS”) at Police Stat As per the allegations, on 06.06.2025 s apprehended on the basis of suspici g money to the tune of Rs.3,25,00 ossession. On his arrest, he suffered of the present petitioner in the crime JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-54181-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 121 dated 06.06.2025 registered Drugs and Psychotropic Substances e Station Sadar Bathinda, District 6.2025, the accused-Arshdeep Singh suspicion and 20 grams of heroin as 3,25,000/- was recovered from his fered disclosure statement admitting crime and on the basis of the same, M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered nces strict ingh in as his itting , AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54181 the petitioner was supplier of the con 3. It is a falsely implicated accused which can has been effected accused is of non granted bail. On further incarcerati argued that he des 4. Learn custody certificate are chances of h benefit of bail. It allowed. 5. This counsel for the par 6. The accused. The nam his disclosure stat Tofan Singh Vs. Hon’ble Apex Co NDPS Act, are in 4181-2025 (O&M) 2 r was nominated as additional accused he contraband. Investigation now stan It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di ich cannot be considered to be admiss ffected from him. The recovery all of non-commercial quantity and the . On parity, he too deserves to be ex rceration would not serve any fruitf he deserves to be released on bail. Learned State counsel while relyin tificate has argued that the petitioner of his committing similar offences ail. It is, therefore, argued that the p This Court has heard the rival subm the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have su he name of the petitioner was disclos re statement, he had sourced the cont Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) ex Court that the disclosure statemen are inadmissible in evidence unless ccused on the ground that he was the w stands completed. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- dmissible in evidence. No recovery ry allegedly effected from the co- d the co-accused has already been be extended the same benefit. His fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, ying on the status report and tioner is a habitual offender. There ffences or absconding, if extended t the petition does not deserve to be l submissions made by the learned ave supplied contraband to the co- isclosed by the co-accused. As per e contraband from the petitioner. In 21) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by atements made under Section 67 of unless corroborated by independent s the been - very - been His fore, and here nded to be rned - s per r. In d by 7 of dent AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54181 material. While th will be tested dur ignored that no rec in custody since 1 the petitioner eith with the co-accuse completed. There main accused ha Keeping in view considered opinio petitioner in custo facts but without m the same prejudic petitioner is ordere surety bonds to Magistrate/Duty M 7. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 8. Since any, is rendered in 09.02.2026 Amit Sharma 4181-2025 (O&M) 3 hile the veracity of the disclosure st ed during the course of trial, howev no recovery was ever effected from t ince 15.06.2025. There is nothing on r er either with the subject crime or to accused in any manner at the relevan There are bleak chances of conclusion ed has already been granted conce view the aforesaid facts and circum opinion that no useful purpose wou custody anymore. Taking into cons thout meaning to make any comments ejudice the trial in any manner, the ordered to be released on bail, subject s to the satisfaction of the learne uty Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail.
Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
ure statement against the petitioner however, at this stage, it cannot be from the petitioner. The petitioner is g on record, at this stage, to connect or to show that he was connected elevant time. Investigation has been lusion of trial in the near future. The concession of bail by this Court. circumstances, this Court is of the e would be served by keeping the o consideration the above discussed ments on the merits of the case lest er, the petition is allowed and the ubject to his furnishing personal and learned trial Court/Chief Judicial y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ioner t be er is nect ected been The ourt. f the the ssed lest the l and icial t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.