CRM-M-4939 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 397 REMPI RANI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- M for the petitioner. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Annexure P 2. On 482 petitioner in case FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Statio 15.11.2025, ASI Baljit Singh along with fellow police officials 4939-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: REMPI RANI Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Annexure P-1). On 17.02.2026, the following order “Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala (Annexure P Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 15.11.2025, ASI Baljit Singh along with fellow police officials IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4939-2026 Date of decision: 05.03.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station Bhadaur, following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later n Bhadaur, District Barnala (Annexure P-1). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 15.11.2025, ASI Baljit Singh along with fellow police officials ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under otropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later on) at Police Station Bhadaur, Prayer in the present petition filed under Section of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0102 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS act added later Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 15.11.2025, ASI Baljit Singh along with fellow police officials GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-4939 was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended Buta Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi conscious possession of 381 intoxicant tablets. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure stat statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co interrogation is not effected from the petitioner. petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are seri investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 4939-2026 2 was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended Buta Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi conscious possession of 381 intoxicant tablets. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. Adjourned to 05.03.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended Buta Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi who were found in conscious possession of 381 intoxicant tablets. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure accused during his/her custodial admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, she shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended Buta who were found in conscious possession of 381 intoxicant tablets. Initially, the FIR Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure accused during his/her custodial admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with of arrest, she shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-4939 3. Learned coun with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, Kamaljit Singh), in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner longer required for further that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the 5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and peruse available record. 7. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) N "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegati Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prose 4939-2026 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement Learned counsel for the State, Kamaljit Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation nterim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner longer required for further custodial interrogation that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered band, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and peruse available record. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegati Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of sel for the petitioner submits that in compliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between that the petitioner is sought to be disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from ASI has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation nterim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no custodial interrogation. She has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner concession of anticipatory bail. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered band, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to o.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the cution urges that another case with allegations of sel for the petitioner submits that in compliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between titioner is sought to be (on instructions from ASI has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered band, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either d the he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail ons in the FIR are that 1.7 accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the cution urges that another case with allegations of GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-4939 commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 8. In the present case also, t solely on the basis of say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehe trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 17.02.2026 shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also ab 482(2) of the BNSS. 10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 05.03.2026 Gurpreet 4939-2026 4 commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be arrayed he basis of the disclosure statement of the co say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially when investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 17.02.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed disclosure statement of the co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when she has joined the protection granted by this Court. the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating ide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE speaking/reasoned? Yes/No commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating ide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.