CRM-M-16585 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 214 MANJOT KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- M for the petitioner. Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, 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(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P 2. On 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1 16585-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: MANJOT KAUR Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, 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.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P On 07.04.2026, 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.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16585-2026 Date of decision: 22.04.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1). following order was passed by this Court: - 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.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS 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.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police 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.78 dated 25.04.2025 registered under Sections 21(b), 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 985 (Sections 29 and 21C of the NDPS Act GURPREET 2026.04.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16585 added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P 25.04.2025, police party on the basis of suspicion, apprehended one Akashdeep Sing possession of 10 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co co Sajan, Arshdeep Singh @ Palli, Karande nominated. 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 she has said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evi connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co custodial recovery is to be effected 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. status report in the matter a report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. investigation when required by the 16585-2026 2 added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1). Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that on 25.04.2025, police party on the basis of suspicion, apprehended one Akashdeep Singh @ Sonu who was found in conscious possession of 10 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co co-accused namely Lovedeep Singh @ Love, Sajan Singh @ Sajan, Arshdeep Singh @ Palli, Karande nominated. 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 she has said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Karandeep Singh @ Kannu. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evi 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. Learned 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 the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. Adjourned to 22.04.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that on 25.04.2025, police party on the basis of suspicion, apprehended h @ Sonu who was found in conscious possession of 10 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused. On interrogation, accused namely Lovedeep Singh @ Love, Sajan Singh @ Sajan, Arshdeep Singh @ Palli, Karandeep Singh @ Kannu were 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 she 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 Karandeep Singh @ Kannu. 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 interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No 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 On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the nd while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join within a week from today and would appear as and Investigating Officer and cooperate with added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that on 25.04.2025, police party on the basis of suspicion, apprehended h @ Sonu who was found in conscious possession of 10 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question accused. On interrogation, accused namely Lovedeep Singh @ Love, Sajan Singh @ ep Singh @ Kannu were 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 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 Karandeep Singh @ Kannu. dence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite accused during his/her interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No 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 On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the nd while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioners to join within a week from today and would appear as and Investigating Officer and cooperate with GURPREET 2026.04.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16585 the Investigating Agency. In the admitted to interim bail on furnishing of satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 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, Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation 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 petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. On a specific query put 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 materi 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. 16585-2026 3 the Investigating Agency. In the admitted to interim bail on furnishing of satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The 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 07.04.2026 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, on instructions from ASI Tejvir has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner required for further custodial interrogation. Sh 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 materi 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. the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, she 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 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. on instructions from ASI Tejvir has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer She 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. 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 event of arrest, she shall be to 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 the petitioner is sought to be on instructions from ASI Tejvir in terms and is no longer submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought 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 al 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 2026.04.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16585 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 Court. The allegati 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 prose 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 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 subject to comprehe trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 16585-2026 4 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou 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 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 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 he 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 investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this 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. ons 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 cution 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 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 nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when she has joined the protection granted by this Court. rt 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 was rejected by the High Court. ons 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 cution 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 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 recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the nsive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the GURPREET 2026.04.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16585 9. In view of the above, order dated 07.04.2026 shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also ab 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. 22.04.2026 Gurpreet 16585-2026 5 In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 07.04.2026 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 ide 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 speaking/reasoned? Yes/No the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating ide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.