CRM-M-73036 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 221 RESHMA @ KANDARI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- M for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, 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 Sections 21 and 25 Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural) 2. On “ BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Sections 21 and 25 Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at 23.11.2025, HC Baljinder Kaur along with other police officials 73036-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: RESHMA @ KANDARI Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Kartik Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, 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.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Sections 21 and 25-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural). On 23.12.2025, the following order “Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Sections 21 and 25-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 23.11.2025, HC Baljinder Kaur along with other police officials -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-73036-2025 Date of decision: 13.01.2026 ….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.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City 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.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Sections 21 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 23.11.2025, HC Baljinder Kaur along with other police officials - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station City of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.264 dated 23.11.2025 registered under Sections 21 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73036 was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended Singh and Brij Lal, who were found in conscious possession of 40 grams of heroin. 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 she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the pet been 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. No from the petitioner. Learned counsel 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. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to 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 Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, she shall be admitted to inter satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 73036-2025 was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended three persons, namely, Gurvinder Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Brij Lal, who were found in conscious possession of 40 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused persons. 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 she has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the pet been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Brij Lal. 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 interrogation is not admissible. No from the petitioner. Learned counsel 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, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 13.01.2026. 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, 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 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” -2- was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, three persons, namely, Gurvinder Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Brij Lal, who were found in conscious possession of 40 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered accused persons. 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Brij Lal. 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 custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel 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 file status report in the matter. n 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, she shall be im 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 - was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, three persons, namely, Gurvinder Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Brij Lal, who were found in conscious possession of 40 grams of heroin. 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 she has no concern with the itioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Brij Lal. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the that accused during his custodial recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, State and seeks n 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, she shall be im 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 GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73036 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, Baljinder Kaur 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 exten 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 petitioner with the recovere 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 the rival parties an 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 statement made to barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and 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 73036-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 23.12.2025 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, Baljinder Kaur), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation 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 petitioner with the recovere 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 an 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 barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and 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 -3- 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. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from HC , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation 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 ded 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 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 result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and 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 - 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 HC , 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 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 d contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either d perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. , 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 them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and 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 GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73036 Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT". 8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 9. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case unde 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 (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 t 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 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." 10. 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 comprehensive scrutiny d 73036-2025 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 Tofan 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 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 t 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 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 recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny d -4- Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of 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 r 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 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 accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of 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 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 accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the - Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of 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 r 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 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 accused. 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 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 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 uring the course of the GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-73036 trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 11. In view of the above, order dated 23 shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also abide by the 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. 13.01.2026 Gurpreet 73036-2025 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 Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 23.12.2025 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 -5- be a ground to decline the concession of especially when she 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 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 - be a ground to decline the concession of he has joined the protection granted by this Court. the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.01.15 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.