CRM-M-73117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 214 SARABJIT KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- M Mr. Tarun Jhatta, Advocate 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 Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga 2. On 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. 73117-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: SARABJIT KAUR Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Gurneet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate for Mr. Tarun Jhatta, 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.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga On 28.01.2026, 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.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73117-2025 Date of decision: 13.02.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , Advocate for 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.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. following order was passed by this Court: - present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.190 dated 20.09.2025 registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later on), at Police GURPREET 2026.02.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73117 20.09.2025, ASI Raghwinder Parsad along with other police officials was on two persons, namely, Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, from whose conscious possession 30 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered, and Sultan Singh @ Gaggarh, from whose conscious possession 49 loose intoxicant tablet question was registered against the said co petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neith spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co 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 interrogation is not admissible in evidence. He that initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned trial Court till receipt of FSL report vide order dated 28.10.2025 which receipt of FSL report. He submits that no recovery effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the matter. 73117-2025 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 20.09.2025, ASI Raghwinder Parsad along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and, on suspicion, apprehended two persons, namely, Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, from whose conscious possession 30 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered, and Sultan Singh @ Gaggarh, from whose conscious possession 49 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered. 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 neith spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sukhchain Singh 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 interrogation is not admissible in evidence. He that initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned trial Court till receipt of FSL report vide order dated 28.10.2025 which was vacated vide order dated 18.12.2025 upon receipt of FSL report. He submits that no recovery effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 13.02.2026. -2- Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 20.09.2025, ASI Raghwinder Parsad along with other police patrolling duty and, on suspicion, apprehended two persons, namely, Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, from whose conscious possession 30 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered, and Sultan Singh @ Gaggarh, from whose conscious possession s were recovered. 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Sukhchain Singh. 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 custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. He further submits that initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned trial Court till receipt of FSL report vide order dated was vacated vide order dated 18.12.2025 upon receipt of FSL report. He submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 13.02.2026. - Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 20.09.2025, ASI Raghwinder Parsad along with other police patrolling duty and, on suspicion, apprehended two persons, namely, Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina, from whose conscious possession 30 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered, and Sultan Singh @ Gaggarh, from whose conscious possession s were recovered. Initially, the FIR in Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He er present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure . 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 accused during his custodial further submits that initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned trial Court till receipt of FSL report vide order dated was vacated vide order dated 18.12.2025 upon is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Ravinder Singh, DAG, State and seeks GURPREET 2026.02.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73117 investigation within when required by the the Investigating Agency. In the admitted to interim bail on furnishing of satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Off shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, Yadvinder Singh), investigation petitioner and is no longer requi 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. 5. On a specific query put by this Court to the le 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 disclosur the offence or the recovered contraband. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 73117-2025 In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the admitted to interim bail on furnishing of satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Off shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 28.01.2026 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, Yadvinder Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the and is no longer required for further 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 On a specific query put by this Court to the le 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 e 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as -3- In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join a week from today and would appear as and 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 Learned counsel 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 HC has submitted that the petitioner has joined the in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the red for further custodial interrogation. He has 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 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 e statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. - In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join would appear as and Investigating Officer and cooperate with event of arrest, she shall be bail/surety bonds to the petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section Learned counsel 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 the petitioner is sought to be HC has submitted that the petitioner has joined the in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the e has 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 arned 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 e statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. GURPREET 2026.02.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73117 State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessiona under the NDPS ACT". 8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 9. 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 C 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 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 73117-2025 State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT". More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 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 allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 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 itioner. 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 -4- State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS l statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan 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 ourt. His application for anticipatory bail ourt. 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 itioner. 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 - , relevant whereof "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS l statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of rated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan 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 ourt. The allegations 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 itioner. 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 GURPREET 2026.02.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73117 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 applications are disposed of." 10. In th solely on the basis of say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 11. In view of the above, order dated 28.01.2026 shall continue to join investiga Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 12. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the ca 13.02.2026 Gurpreet 73117-2025 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 applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the 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 Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 28.01.2026 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 ca i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -5- 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 disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive 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 tion as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide 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 i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No - 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 accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.