CRM-M-13686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 222 NAVDEEP SINGH @ LUCKY 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 Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and P (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. 2. On the BNSS, in case FIR No.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 13686-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: NAVDEEP SINGH @ LUCKY Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. R.D.S. Bhullar, 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.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, . On 12.03.2026, 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.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13686-2026 Date of decision: 30.03.2026 ….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.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under sychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under sychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.340 dated 25.12.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, GURPREET 2026.04.02 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-13686 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamk 25.12.2025, S.I. Lakhwinder Singh along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a secret information, apprehended one Baljinder Singh @ Bunty who was found in consc filled with intoxicant liquid. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co petitioner has been falsely implicated 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 contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the statement made by co 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 custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He submits that co accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty has already been granted concession of bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03. petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status report in the matter. investigation within a week from today and would appear as and 13686-2026 2 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 25.12.2025, S.I. Lakhwinder Singh along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a secret information, apprehended one Baljinder Singh @ Bunty who was found in conscious possession of 20 grams of Heroin along with a syringe filled with intoxicant liquid. 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 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 contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the statement made by co-accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty. 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 custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He submits that co accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty has already been granted concession of bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2026. 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 investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 30.03.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police ot, District Moga. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 25.12.2025, S.I. Lakhwinder Singh along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a secret information, apprehended one Baljinder Singh @ Bunty who was found in ious possession of 20 grams of Heroin along with a syringe filled with intoxicant liquid. Initially, the FIR in question was 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 he has no concern with the said incident. He contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty. 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/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He submits that co- accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty has already been granted concession of bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 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 investigating agency. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 25.12.2025, S.I. Lakhwinder Singh along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a secret information, apprehended one Baljinder Singh @ Bunty who was found in ious possession of 20 grams of Heroin along with a syringe filled with intoxicant liquid. Initially, the FIR in question was Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 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 contends that the petitioner has been disclosure accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No - accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty has already been granted concession of bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and Punjab State and seeks time to In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and GURPREET 2026.04.02 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-13686 when the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 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, Lashman Singh, in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner 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 specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any mat 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 the offence or 6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 13686-2026 3 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 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 compliance the order dated 12.03.2026 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, Lashman Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner longer required for further custodial interrogation e 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 mat 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 the recovered contraband. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner 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 er 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 of Inspector 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 e 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 I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner 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 er argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be ctor has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no submitted e FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel erial 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 GURPREET 2026.04.02 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-13686 7. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C 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 pet 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 peti 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 s trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 13686-2026 4 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 C 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 a 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/protection granted by this Court. he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- 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 bail. Having regard to these tioner 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 ubject 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. 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 ourt. 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 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 bail. Having regard to these tioner 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 rrayed 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 ubject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the GURPREET 2026.04.02 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-13686 9. In view of the above, order dated 12.03.2026 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. 30.03.2026 Gurpreet 13686-2026 5 In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 12.03.2026 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 case. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation 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 the interim is made absolute. The petitioner g 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 2026.04.02 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.