CRM-M-48366 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 215 CHINTU STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- M Ms. Himani Kapila, 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 Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, District SAS Nagar 2. On “ BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lat Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, District SAS Nagar. 48366-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Rajesh Kapila, Advocate and Ms. Himani Kapila, 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.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, District SAS Nagar On 08.12.2025, the following order “Prayer in the present petition BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lat Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, District SAS Nagar. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48366-2025 Date of decision: 12.01.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL r. Rajesh Kapila, Advocate and 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.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, District SAS Nagar. following order was passed: - 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.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under otropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.188 dated 11.07.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 eron) at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Police District ANTF Wing, GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-48366 11.07.2025, ASI Satpal along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis apprehended Robin and Raman, who were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the abovesaid co petitio 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nom statement made by co he had brought the alleged contraband from the petitioner. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect th law that disclosure statement of the co hiscustodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that t 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 when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigati admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner 48366-2025 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 11.07.2025, ASI Satpal along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis apprehended Robin and Raman, who were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the abovesaid co Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Robin in which he has stated that he had brought the alleged contraband from the petitioner. 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 hiscustodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 22.12.2025. 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner -2- Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 11.07.2025, ASI Satpal along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended Robin and Raman, who were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the abovesaid co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ner 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has inated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Robin in which he has stated that he had brought the alleged contraband from the petitioner. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to e petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during hiscustodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further he 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. Amit Shukla, 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 when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with ng 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 - Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 11.07.2025, ASI Satpal along with other police officials was on of secret information, apprehended Robin and Raman, who were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ner 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has inated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Robin in which he has stated that he had brought the alleged contraband from the petitioner. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to e petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite accused during hiscustodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further he 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. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab, to 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 ng Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-48366 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of 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, Shekhar), has submitted that the petitioner has joined t 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 material has been found during investigation to connect the petitio 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 for available record. 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 confessional barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and 48366-2025 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 08.12.2025 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, (on instructions from , has submitted that the petitioner has joined t terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner 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 petitio 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. 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 -3- shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance .2025 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. (on instructions from ASI Chander , 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. 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 the rival parties and perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. 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 statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and - shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance .2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be Chander in and is no submitted that since the 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 as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been ner 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 rival parties and perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. f "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 statement made to them would be GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-48366 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". 8. More recently, t ‘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 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 anti 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 the co-accused. That apart there i 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 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 ca solely on the basis of say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the 48366-2025 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 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 anti 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 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 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 -4- 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 he Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to 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 s 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 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 - 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 he Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of has reiterated the ratio 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 cipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by s 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 regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-48366 recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the p investigation in terms of interim 11. In view of the above, order dated 08 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. 12. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 12.01.2026 Gurpreet 48366-2025 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. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 08.12.2025 passed by this Court is made absolute. The pe 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 to be an opinion on the merits of the case. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -5- 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 he has joined the protection granted by this Court. 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 to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No - 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 he has joined the protection granted by this Court. the interim titioner by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.