CRM-M-68020- 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jagmit Singh State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0109 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 21 NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kalanwali, Police District Dabw Sirsa, during the pendency of trial. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present bail petition are that on 20.05.2025, co Singh were apprehended in the area of Police Statio heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. allegedly disclosed that the recovered contraband had been purchased conspiracy with the present petitioner from co at Refinery Road, Bathinda, and that on 19.05.2025 the petitioner had contributed ₹1,35,000/- towards the purchase of the contraband. -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 483 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0109 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 21 NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kalanwali, Police District Dabw Sirsa, during the pendency of trial. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present bail petition are that on 20.05.2025, co-accused namely Khushwinder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh were apprehended in the area of Police Statio heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. During interrogation, the said co allegedly disclosed that the recovered contraband had been purchased conspiracy with the present petitioner from co-accused Sandeep (yet to be arrested) at Refinery Road, Bathinda, and that on 19.05.2025 the petitioner had contributed towards the purchase of the contraband. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68020-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0109 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kalanwali, Police District Dabwali, District Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present bail petition are that winder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh were apprehended in the area of Police Station Kalanwali with 300 grams of heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence, in violation of During interrogation, the said co-accused allegedly disclosed that the recovered contraband had been purchased accused Sandeep (yet to be arrested) at Refinery Road, Bathinda, and that on 19.05.2025 the petitioner had contributed towards the purchase of the contraband. of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in C and 29 of the ali, District Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present bail petition are that winder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa n Kalanwali with 300 grams of heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence, in violation of accused in accused Sandeep (yet to be arrested) at Refinery Road, Bathinda, and that on 19.05.2025 the petitioner had contributed TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68020- 3. The petitioner was arrested on statement was recorded. The challan has already been presented and the case is presently pending trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It i FIR would show that the name of the petitioner does not find mention therein and no recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the alleged disclosure stat Khushwinder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh, which are inadmissible in evidence and have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 5. It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had allegedl there is no documentary or independent legal evidence to substantiate the said allegation except the disclosure statements recorded in police custody. 6. Learned c improbable and not supported by any independent witness, despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a busy public place. No independent person was joined in the investigation, which clearly indicates non mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 7. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2025, the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner undertakes to abi imposed by this Court for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track -2025 (O&M) The petitioner was arrested on statement was recorded. The challan has already been presented and the case is presently pending trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the name of the petitioner does not find mention therein and no recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the alleged disclosure stat winder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh, which are inadmissible in evidence and have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had allegedly paid a sum of ₹1,35,000/ there is no documentary or independent legal evidence to substantiate the said allegation except the disclosure statements recorded in police custody. Learned counsel further submits that the improbable and not supported by any independent witness, despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a busy public place. No independent person was joined in the investigation, which clearly indicates non mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2025, the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner undertakes to abi this Court and is not involved in any other case. His earlier application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track -2- The petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2025 and his disclosure statement was recorded. The challan has already been presented and the case is Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has s submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the name of the petitioner does not find mention therein and no recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the alleged disclosure statements of co-accused winder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh, which are inadmissible in evidence and have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is ₹1,35,000/- for purchase of heroin, however, there is no documentary or independent legal evidence to substantiate the said allegation except the disclosure statements recorded in police custody. ounsel further submits that the prosecution story is highly improbable and not supported by any independent witness, despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a busy public place. No independent person was joined in the investigation, which clearly indicates non-compliance of the It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2025, the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions and is not involved in any other case. His earlier application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track 07.06.2025 and his disclosure statement was recorded. The challan has already been presented and the case is Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has s submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that the name of the petitioner does not find mention therein and no recovery has been effected from him. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused winder Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju and Jassa Singh, which are inadmissible in It is further contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is for purchase of heroin, however, there is no documentary or independent legal evidence to substantiate the said prosecution story is highly improbable and not supported by any independent witness, despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a busy public place. No independent person of the It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2025, the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable de by all the terms and conditions and is not involved in any other case. His earlier application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68020- Special Court), Sirsa vide order dated 28.10.2025, without p the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure statement of co- that during investigation, the petitioner has been found involved in the commission of offence involving commercial quantity. As per the prosecution case, the contraband weighing 300 grams was purchased by the co with the present petitioner from another co contended that the petitioner had given a sum of purchasing the contraband and that his active participation in the crime stands established. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond or indulge in similar activities. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has been named in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co contraband in question was purchased by the co petitioner and that purpose, however, except for the disclosure statement of the co other material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged payment or the recovery. No recovery has bee custody for the last about 8½ months and the trial is likely to take time to conclude. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, -2025 (O&M) Special Court), Sirsa vide order dated 28.10.2025, without p the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure -accused Khushwinder Singh @ Khushdeep Singh. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has been found involved in the commission of offence involving commercial quantity. As per the prosecution case, the contraband weighing 300 grams was purchased by the co with the present petitioner from another co contended that the petitioner had given a sum of purchasing the contraband and that his active participation in the crime stands blished. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond or indulge in similar activities. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. he petitioner has been named in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the contraband in question was purchased by the co petitioner and that the petitioner had paid a sum of purpose, however, except for the disclosure statement of the co other material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged payment or the recovery. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 8½ months and the trial is likely to take time to conclude. 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 ‘ -3- Special Court), Sirsa vide order dated 28.10.2025, without properly appreciating On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure @ Khushdeep Singh. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has been found involved in the commission of offence involving commercial quantity. As per the prosecution case, the contraband weighing 300 grams was purchased by the co-accused in conspiracy with the present petitioner from another co-accused Sandeep. It is further contended that the petitioner had given a sum of ₹1,35,000/- towards his share for purchasing the contraband and that his active participation in the crime stands blished. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond or indulge in I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. he petitioner has been named in the present case on the basis of the disclosure accused. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the contraband in question was purchased by the co-accused in conspiracy with the the petitioner had paid a sum of ₹1,35,000/- for the said purpose, however, except for the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no other material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged payment or the n effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 8½ months and the trial is likely to take time to conclude. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay roperly appreciating On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure @ Khushdeep Singh. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has been found involved in the commission of offence involving commercial quantity. As per the prosecution case, the in conspiracy accused Sandeep. It is further towards his share for purchasing the contraband and that his active participation in the crime stands blished. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond or indulge in I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. he petitioner has been named in the present case on the basis of the disclosure accused. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused in conspiracy with the for the said accused, there is no other material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged payment or the n effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 8½ months and the trial is likely to take time to conclude. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of Vijay TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68020- 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 Na (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 present at the spot but was named by the co no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDP 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 tri allowed.” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 12. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be expression on the merits of the case at trial 13. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 25, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) 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 the co no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDP 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.” In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be expression on the merits of the case at trial. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) ' has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 rcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) cused. 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 NDP 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 al Court may impose. The petition is In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 rcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) cused. The petitioner concededly was not 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 al Court may impose. The petition is In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered furnishing adequate bail and surety However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.25 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document