CRM-M-57309- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 52 dated 08.04.2025, registered under Sections 21 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 08.04.2025, ASI Tejbir Singh along with other police officials was present near the back gate of Guru Nanak University in connection with VIP duty when he received secret information that accused Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashanpreet Singh @ Raja and one other associate, who were allegedly involved in the illegal business of arms and ammunition, were travelling Dzire car bearing registration No. DL taken they could be apprehended red reliable, the police party acted promptly and chas the aforesaid accused persons, namely Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashandeep Singh -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga Versus HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 52 dated 08.04.2025, registered under Sections 21-C, 29 and 25 of the NDP of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar. As per the case of the prosecution, on 08.04.2025, ASI Tejbir Singh along with other police officials was present near the back gate of Guru Nanak University in connection with VIP duty when he received secret information that accused Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashanpreet Singh @ Raja and one other associate, who were allegedly involved in the illegal business of arms and ammunition, were travelling from India Gate towards Verka Dzire car bearing registration No. DL-6-CP-5246 and that if immediate action was taken they could be apprehended red-handed. Treating the information to be reliable, the police party acted promptly and chas the aforesaid accused persons, namely Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashandeep Singh -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57309-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 52 dated 08.04.2025, C, 29 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar. As per the case of the prosecution, on 08.04.2025, ASI Tejbir Singh along with other police officials was present near the back gate of Guru Nanak Dev University in connection with VIP duty when he received secret information that accused Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashanpreet Singh @ Raja and one other associate, who were allegedly involved in the illegal business of arms and from India Gate towards Verka Byepass in a Swift 5246 and that if immediate action was handed. Treating the information to be reliable, the police party acted promptly and chased the said vehicle, whereupon the aforesaid accused persons, namely Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashandeep Singh filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 52 dated 08.04.2025, S Act, 1985 and Section 111 As per the case of the prosecution, on 08.04.2025, ASI Tejbir Singh Dev University in connection with VIP duty when he received secret information that accused Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashanpreet Singh @ Raja and one other associate, who were allegedly involved in the illegal business of arms and in a Swift 5246 and that if immediate action was handed. Treating the information to be ed the said vehicle, whereupon the aforesaid accused persons, namely Manpreet Singh @ Mota, Jashandeep Singh TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57309- @ Raja and Dilsher Singh, were apprehended and a recovery of 316 grams of heroin was effected from them. 3. It is further the prosecution case petitioner Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that t has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, and he was not apprehended at the spot. It is further argued that no recovery whatsoever has been petitioner and that the alleged recovery, if any, was effected only from the co accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has merely been nominated in the disclosure statement of the co contraband, however, there is no independent or corroborative evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the main accused, namely Jashandeep Singh or Manpreet Singh, from whose possession the recovery has been effected. On these grounds, it bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the recovery involved in the present case is of commercial quantity, which was effected from further submitted that as many as five other FIRs are stated to be registered against the present petitioner and he is alleged to be a habitual offender involved in drug trafficking activities. However, it statement of the co -2025 (O&M) @ Raja and Dilsher Singh, were apprehended and a recovery of 316 grams of heroin was effected from them. It is further the prosecution case that during interrogation, the present Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that t has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, and he was not apprehended at the spot. It is further argued that no recovery whatsoever has been petitioner and that the alleged recovery, if any, was effected only from the co accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has merely been nominated in the disclosure statement of the co however, there is no independent or corroborative evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the main accused, namely Jashandeep Singh or Manpreet Singh, from whose possession the recovery has been effected. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the recovery involved in the present case is of commercial quantity, which was effected from the co-accused and from the car in question. It is further submitted that as many as five other FIRs are stated to be registered against the present petitioner and he is alleged to be a habitual offender involved in drug trafficking activities. However, it is fairly conceded that apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other independent link evidence has surfaced -2- @ Raja and Dilsher Singh, were apprehended and a recovery of 316 grams of that during interrogation, the present Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, and he was not apprehended at the spot. It is further argued that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and that the alleged recovery, if any, was effected only from the co accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has merely been nominated in the disclosure statement of the co-accused as an alleged supplier of however, there is no independent or corroborative evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the main accused, namely Jashandeep Singh or Manpreet Singh, from whose possession the recovery has been effected. On is prayed that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the recovery involved in the present case is of commercial accused and from the car in question. It is further submitted that as many as five other FIRs are stated to be registered against the present petitioner and he is alleged to be a habitual offender involved in drug is fairly conceded that apart from the disclosure accused, no other independent link evidence has surfaced @ Raja and Dilsher Singh, were apprehended and a recovery of 316 grams of that during interrogation, the present Gagandeep Singh @ Jagdeep Singh @ Jagga was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co- he present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, and he was not apprehended at the effected from the petitioner and that the alleged recovery, if any, was effected only from the co- accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has merely been alleged supplier of however, there is no independent or corroborative evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the main accused, namely Jashandeep Singh or Manpreet Singh, from whose possession the recovery has been effected. On is prayed that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the recovery involved in the present case is of commercial accused and from the car in question. It is further submitted that as many as five other FIRs are stated to be registered against the present petitioner and he is alleged to be a habitual offender involved in drug is fairly conceded that apart from the disclosure accused, no other independent link evidence has surfaced TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57309- during investigation so far to directly connect the present petitioner with the co accused or with the recovery effected in the 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, nor was he apprehended at the spot. It is also not disputed recovery has been effected from the petitioner. His implication in the present case is solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co been alleged to be the supplier of contraband. It is well settled that a discl statement of a co evidentiary value at the stage of bail, particularly when no recovery has been effected from the accused so nominated. 8. Even otherwise, learned State counsel has fair other material has come on record during investigation to establish any direct nexus between the present petitioner and the main accused or with the recovered contraband. Though it has been argued that other FIRs are registered against petitioner, it is equally settled that mere involvement in other cases cannot by itself be a ground to deny bail in the present case, unless the prosecution is able to show specific material connecting the accused with the crime under consideration. 9. 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 titled as ‘ Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -2025 (O&M) during investigation so far to directly connect the present petitioner with the co accused or with the recovery effected in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, nor was he apprehended at the spot. It is also not disputed recovery has been effected from the petitioner. His implication in the present case is solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co been alleged to be the supplier of contraband. It is well settled that a discl statement of a co-accused, in the absence of independent corroboration, has weak evidentiary value at the stage of bail, particularly when no recovery has been effected from the accused so nominated. Even otherwise, learned State counsel has fair other material has come on record during investigation to establish any direct nexus between the present petitioner and the main accused or with the recovered contraband. Though it has been argued that other FIRs are registered against petitioner, it is equally settled that mere involvement in other cases cannot by itself be a ground to deny bail in the present case, unless the prosecution is able to show specific material connecting the accused with the crime under consideration. 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 titled as ‘ 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 -3- during investigation so far to directly connect the present petitioner with the co present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Admittedly, the petitioner is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR, nor was he apprehended at the spot. It is also not disputed that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. His implication in the present case is solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, wherein he has been alleged to be the supplier of contraband. It is well settled that a disclosure accused, in the absence of independent corroboration, has weak evidentiary value at the stage of bail, particularly when no recovery has been Even otherwise, learned State counsel has fairly conceded that no other material has come on record during investigation to establish any direct nexus between the present petitioner and the main accused or with the recovered contraband. Though it has been argued that other FIRs are registered against petitioner, it is equally settled that mere involvement in other cases cannot by itself be a ground to deny bail in the present case, unless the prosecution is able to show specific material connecting the accused with the crime under consideration. 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 titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) ' 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 during investigation so far to directly connect the present petitioner with the co- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Admittedly, the petitioner is neither named in the secret information that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. His implication in the present case accused, wherein he has osure accused, in the absence of independent corroboration, has weak evidentiary value at the stage of bail, particularly when no recovery has been ly conceded that no other material has come on record during investigation to establish any direct nexus between the present petitioner and the main accused or with the recovered contraband. Though it has been argued that other FIRs are registered against the petitioner, it is equally settled that mere involvement in other cases cannot by itself be a ground to deny bail in the present case, unless the prosecution is able to show The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57309- (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co present at the spot but was named by the co no other material to im 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 circumst 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.” 10. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 circumstances of the present case are to be seen the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "As observ antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other cir jurisdiction of the Court etc." 11. Keeping in view the facts that (i) the petitioner is not named in the initial information or FIR, (ii) he was not apprehended at the spot, (iii) no recovery has been effected from him, (iv) his nomination rests solely on the disclosure statement of co -2025 (O&M) (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 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 circumst 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.” As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in one more criminal case, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another’, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/ another cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." Keeping in view the facts that (i) the petitioner is not named in the initial information or FIR, (ii) he was not apprehended at the spot, (iii) no recovery een effected from him, (iv) his nomination rests solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused, and (v) there is presently no independent corroborative -4- (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That apart there is plicate 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 As regards the submission of learned State counsel that more criminal case, reference is placed upon the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State in which, it is held that the facts and while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the cases). The relevant portion of the said ed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and cumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the Keeping in view the facts that (i) the petitioner is not named in the initial information or FIR, (ii) he was not apprehended at the spot, (iii) no recovery een effected from him, (iv) his nomination rests solely on the disclosure accused, and (v) there is presently no independent corroborative (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) accused. The petitioner concededly was not accused. That apart there is plicate 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 ances, 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 As regards the submission of learned State counsel that more criminal case, reference is placed upon the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State in which, it is held that the facts and while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the cases). The relevant portion of the said ed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and cumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the Keeping in view the facts that (i) the petitioner is not named in the initial information or FIR, (ii) he was not apprehended at the spot, (iii) no recovery een effected from him, (iv) his nomination rests solely on the disclosure accused, and (v) there is presently no independent corroborative TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57309- evidence linking him with the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petit 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial subject to the usual conditions as prescribed under law. 13. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 23, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) evidence linking him with the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the usual conditions as prescribed under law. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- evidence linking him with the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered ioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the usual conditions as prescribed under law. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No evidence linking him with the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.23 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document