CRM-M-16557 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 233 RAHUL STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. 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, 22, 27 Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot (Annexure P 2. On 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 27 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of t 16557-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. S.K. Choudhary, 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.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 27-A, 61, 85 of the Narcot Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot (Annexure P On 25.03.2026, the following order “Prayer in the present petiti 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under Sections 21, 22, 27-A, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16557-2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent 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.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under A, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot (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.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under A, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 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.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under ic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police on filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 21.09.2025 registered under A, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and he NDPS Act GURPREET 2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16557 added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot (Annexure P 21.09.2025, ASI Sunil Kumar along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a basis of apprehended one Deepak alias Kannu and Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu who were found in conscious possession of 06 grams of Heroin each. 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 he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question law that disclosure statement of the co custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status 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 inter 16557-2026 2 added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot (Annexure P-1). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 21.09.2025, ASI Sunil Kumar along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a basis of apprehended one Deepak alias Kannu and Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu who were found in conscious possession of 06 grams of Heroin each. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petit petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question law that disclosure statement of the co custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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 07.04.2026 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, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 21.09.2025, ASI Sunil Kumar along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on a basis of suspicion, apprehended one Deepak alias Kannu and Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu who were found in conscious possession of 06 grams of Heroin each. 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 he 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 Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 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 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 the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be im bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the added later on) at Police Station Division No.1, District Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 21.09.2025, ASI Sunil Kumar along with fellow police officials suspicion, apprehended one Deepak alias Kannu and Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu who were found in conscious possession of 06 grams of Heroin each. Initially, the FIR in question was registered ioner 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 petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Abhishek Sharma alias Anbu. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to and it is a trite accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel er is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so On asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab State and seeks time to In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be im bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the GURPREET 2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16557 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in co with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only 4. Learned counsel for the State, Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation of interim order/protection earlier afforded to th 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 specifi 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 th 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. 7. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment 16557-2026 3 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in co the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kewal has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation of interim order/protection earlier afforded to th required for further custodial interrogation. H 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 th 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. 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 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 Kewal has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer 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. c 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 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section mpliance 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 Kewal in terms and is no longer submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought c 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 at 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 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 GURPREET 2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16557 titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the pet allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the peti anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 8. In the present case also, t solely on the basis of say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be s trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 25.03.2026 16557-2026 4 ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be a solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially when he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 25.03.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the itioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these tioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed disclosure statement of the co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the ubject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the protection granted by this Court. the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His ourt. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner - accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the itioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these tioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending rrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the ubject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner GURPREET 2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-16557 shall continue to join investigation as and when Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 07.04.2026 Gurpreet 16557-2026 5 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 shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No g Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.