CRM-M-9388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 231 DOCTOR DALBIR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- M for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, 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 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran 2. On ordinate bench of this Court of BNSS, 2023 for FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21 Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. 9388-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: DOCTOR DALBIR SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, 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.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21-B/27 registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran On 18.02.2026, the following order ordinate bench of this Court: - “1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21-B/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9388-2026 Date of decision: 05.03.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections B/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. following order was passed by the co- 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, - 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9388 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused, namely, Harpreet Singh. It has be that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commissioning of the offence. He further asserts that co accused, namely, Harpreet Singh @ Harry, in w 32 bore pistol, 49 grams of heroin and Rs.5,000/ were recovered and Gurjant Singh @ Janta, have already been granted the concession of bail by trial Court or by this Court vide Annexures P further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three more cases. Court is of the considered view that the recovery in qu already been effected from co recovered from the present petitioner, he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused have already been granted the concession of bail by Court or by the trial Court vide Annexures P plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana', bearing Speci 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 has held as under: 9388-2026 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused, namely, Harpreet Singh. It has be that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commissioning of the offence. He further asserts that co accused, namely, Harpreet Singh @ Harry, in w 32 bore pistol, 49 grams of heroin and Rs.5,000/ were recovered and Gurjant Singh @ Janta, have already been granted the concession of bail by trial Court or by this Court vide Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. Learned counse further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned. 3. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three more cases. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the recovery in qu already been effected from co-accused, nothing remains to be recovered from the present petitioner, he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused have already been granted the concession of bail by Court or by the trial Court vide Annexures P 6. 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 titled as Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana', bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 has held as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused, namely, Harpreet Singh. It has been further contended that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commissioning of the offence. He further asserts that co- accused, namely, Harpreet Singh @ Harry, in whose possession 32 bore pistol, 49 grams of heroin and Rs.5,000/- drug money were recovered and Gurjant Singh @ Janta, have already been granted the concession of bail by trial Court or by this Court 3, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three more cases. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the recovery in question has accused, nothing remains to be recovered from the present petitioner, he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, co- accused have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court or by the trial Court vide Annexures P-2 and P-3. 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 titled as Vijay Singh vs. The State of al Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 has held as under: contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused - en further contended that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the - hose possession drug money were recovered and Gurjant Singh @ Janta, have already been granted the concession of bail by trial Court or by this Court l further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, State and opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this estion has accused, nothing remains to be recovered from the present petitioner, he has been implicated - this 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 titled as Vijay Singh vs. The State of al Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9388 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 petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedi 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." petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another', 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the fact circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases). The relevant portion of the is reproduced hereinbelow: criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused i and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned cou 9388-2026 3 7. "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 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 prosecution urges that another case with allegations of 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." As regards the submission of learn petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another', 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the fact circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases). The relevant portion of the is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 8. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing "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 accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those ngs 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." As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, reference is judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another', 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out n the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned nsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing "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 accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those ngs 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 ed State counsel that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, reference is judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another', s and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in said judgment "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out n the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned nsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9388 to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail. on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigatin shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. there is no connection between the petitioner and petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of statement of the co 4. Learned counsel for the State, Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner required for further since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. On a specific query put by thi 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 oth 9388-2026 4 to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigatin shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 10. List on 05.03.2026.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. there is no connection between the petitioner and petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from ASI Mahal has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner required for further custodial interrogation. H 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 contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material oth to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail. titioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under .” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance passed by the co-ordinate bench of 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 the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure (on instructions from ASI Mahal has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer He has however submitted 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. s 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 to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner titioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the g Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance this e has further argued that the disclosure (on instructions from ASI Mahal in terms s no longer submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought s 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 er GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9388 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 perused the 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.) 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 the co-accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prose 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 9388-2026 5 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 perused the available record. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court whi 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 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 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 Appeal (Crl.) No.(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 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 than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the le 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 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 GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-9388 trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 18.02.2026 absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating provided under Section 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 9388-2026 6 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 18.02.2026 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when by the Investigating 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 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 ordinate bench of this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as 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.