CRM-M-54401 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 217 GURJANT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh, 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 Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural NDPS Act, 1985 2. On ordinate bench of this Court “ grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the 54401-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: GURJANT SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh, 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.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural NDPS Act, 1985. On 25.09.2025, the following order ordinate bench of this Court: - “Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, has appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54401-2025 Date of decision: 04.02.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of following order was passed by the co- Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. Notice of motion. Mr. Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, has appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at under Sections 21, 29, 25 of - Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, has GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-54401 parties have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused. @ Galu and Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu were apprehended by the police while patrolling in the area of Fat Shukarchak. On search, 10 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of co of heroin from the possession of co Kalu. On interrogation, co disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who had supplied the contraband to them. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The disclosure statement of co whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as “Sahil Joshi Vs passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Court in CRM bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected. 54401-2025 parties have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused. As per prosecution case, two persons namely Vishal Singh @ Galu and Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu were apprehended by the police while patrolling in the area of Fat Shukarchak. On search, 10 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of co-accused Vishal Singh @ Galu and 20 grams of heroin from the possession of co Kalu. On interrogation, co-accused Arshdeep Singh disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who had supplied the contraband to them. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued t petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu, whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as “Sahil Joshi Vs. State of Punjab” and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Court in CRM-M-18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected. -2- parties have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused. As per prosecution case, two persons namely Vishal Singh @ Galu and Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu were apprehended by the police while patrolling in the area of Fatehgarh near Pul Nehar, Shukarchak. On search, 10 grams of heroin was recovered from accused Vishal Singh @ Galu and 20 grams of heroin from the possession of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who had supplied the contraband to them. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu, whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as . State of Punjab” and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this 2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected. - parties have been heard and material collected by the police As per prosecution case, two persons namely Vishal Singh @ Galu and Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu were apprehended by the ehgarh near Pul Nehar, Shukarchak. On search, 10 grams of heroin was recovered from accused Vishal Singh @ Galu and 20 grams accused Arshdeep Singh @ @ Kalu disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who had supplied the contraband to them. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been hat the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu, whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as . State of Punjab” and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’. Learned counsel also placed on file the ordinate Bench of this 2025 in the aforesaid case vide which GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-54401 prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has during investigation and disclosure statement of co Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to trace the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure statement of co call details between the petitioner and both co out towards his i heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on anticipatory bail ob not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended. Meanwhile, the petitioner in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Secti [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]: 54401-2025 On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has during investigation and disclosure statement of co Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to race the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ call details between the petitioner and both co out towards his involvement. In Jugraj Singh’s case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on anticipatory bail observing that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended. Adjourned to 26.11.2025 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Secti [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]: i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; -3- On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has emerged during investigation and disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to race the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. There are no call details between the petitioner and both co-accused to point nvolvement. In Jugraj Singh’s case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered his release serving that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be Adjourned to 26.11.2025 for filing status report. is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; - On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the emerged accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to race the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure Kalu. There are no accused to point nvolvement. In Jugraj Singh’s case (supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered his release serving that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be Adjourned to 26.11.2025 for filing status report. is directed to join the investigation and interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following on 482(2) of the BNSS i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-54401 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 petitio 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 joi 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 petition not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 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 peti 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 available record. 54401-2025 ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 25.09.2025 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 , has submitted that the petitioner has joi 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 petition 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 peti 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. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. -4- ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance .2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. She has further argued that ner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure (on instructions from SI Mantej , 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. 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 for the rival parties and perused the - ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any petitioner shall not leave India without the - section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance this e has further argued that the disclosure Mantej in terms and is no longer submitted that er ought 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 tioner 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 for the rival parties and perused the GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-54401 7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 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 confe 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 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’ 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 54401-2025 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 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 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 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 -5- 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. 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 ssional 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 be used as a confessional 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 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. 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 - At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. 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 ssional 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 be used as a confessional 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 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 "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 GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-54401 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 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 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 m 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 t bench of this Court. 11. In view of the above, order dated 25 absolute. The petitioner shal required by the Investigating 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 opi 04.02.2026 Gurpreet 54401-2025 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 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 m 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 5.09.2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench of 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 -6- 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 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 the co-ordinate the petition is allowed and the interim ordinate bench of this Court is made l continue to join investigation as and when by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be nion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether 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 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 ade by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the ordinate the interim is made l continue to join investigation as and when by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.06 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.