CRM-M-21078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 223 GURJANT SINGH @ GAINDA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- M for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case Section 21-C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and P 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P 2. On the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of in case FIR No.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under Section 21 C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P 1). 21078-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: GURJANT SINGH @ GAINDA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and P 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P On 20.04.2026, 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.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under Section 21 C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P 1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21078-2026 Date of decision: 30.04.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1). following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under Section 21- C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur (Annexure P- ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.51 dated 02.03.2026 registered under sychotropic Substances Act, Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of anticipatory bail to the petitioner - C, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, - GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-21078 02.03.2026 police party was on a patrolling duty and on a basis of suspicion, apprehended co Singh alias Jagga and Rahul Kumar. 600 grams of Heroin was recovered from co Heroin was recovered from co Jagga and 100 grams of Heroin was recovered from co Rahul Kumar. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner 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 disclosure statement of the co interrogation is not admissible in effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willin 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 mat investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to inter 21078-2026 2 Brief facts, as per the prosecu 02.03.2026 police party was on a patrolling duty and on a basis of suspicion, apprehended co-accused Pooja alias Ruby, Jagdeep Singh alias Jagga and Rahul Kumar. 600 grams of Heroin was recovered from co-accused Pooja alias Ruby, 200 Heroin was recovered from co Jagga and 100 grams of Heroin was recovered from co Rahul Kumar. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner conten 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 he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Pooja alias Ruby. 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 disclosure statement of the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willin investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the mat Adjourned to 30.04.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that on 02.03.2026 police party was on a patrolling duty and on a basis accused Pooja alias Ruby, Jagdeep Singh alias Jagga and Rahul Kumar. 600 grams of Heroin was accused Pooja alias Ruby, 200 grams of Heroin was recovered from co-accused Jagdeep Singh alias Jagga and 100 grams of Heroin was recovered from co-accused Rahul Kumar. Initially, the FIR in question was registered 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 he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Pooja alias Ruby. 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/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the On asking of the Court, Mr. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be im bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the tion case, are that on 02.03.2026 police party was on a patrolling duty and on a basis accused Pooja alias Ruby, Jagdeep Singh alias Jagga and Rahul Kumar. 600 grams of Heroin was grams of accused Jagdeep Singh alias accused Rahul Kumar. Initially, the FIR in question was registered ds 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 he has no concern with the has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Pooja alias Ruby. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the that accused during his/her custodial evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner g to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the On asking of the Court, Mr. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG State and seeks In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be im bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-21078 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in co with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only 4. Learned counsel for the State, Gurmeet Singh, in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to longer required for further that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. On a 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 submi 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 21078-2026 3 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in co the order dated 20.04.2026 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, Gurmeet Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to longer required for further custodial interrogation that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submi 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 while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment 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 SHO has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no custodial interrogation. 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. 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 I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section mpliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be on instructions from SHO has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner 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 tted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-21078 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 The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the p 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 pe 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 trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 20.04.2026 21078-2026 4 ‘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 The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co 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. All pending applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be 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 he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protecti In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 20.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner ‘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 the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the etitioner. 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 titioner 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 subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the protection granted by this Court. the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner ‘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 Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner - accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the etitioner. 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 titioner 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 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 subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-21078 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. 10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 30.04.2026 Gurpreet 21078-2026 5 shall continue to join investigation as and when r 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 shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating r 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 by the Investigating r and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.