CRM-M-20783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 206 DESRAJ SINGH 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 Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act District Police Commissionerate Amritsar 2. On 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. petitioner has bee further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the 20783-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: DESRAJ SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Abhinandan Sekhri, 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.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. On 01.05.2026, 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.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20783-2026 Date of decision: 11.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Advocate 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.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Chheharta, 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.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Chheharta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the n falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under , at Police Station Chheharta, 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.44 dated 27.02.2026 registered under Section 21(b), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the n falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-20783 said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as a statement made by co was apprehended at the spot with 51 grams of heroin. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the o disclosure statement of the co interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status repor 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 even 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. 3. Learned cou 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 20783-2026 2 said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sanpreet Singh @ Sunny, who was apprehended at the spot with 51 grams of heroin. 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 interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 11.05.2026. 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 even 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 01.05.2026 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, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has n accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Sanpreet Singh @ Sunny, who was apprehended at the spot with 51 grams of heroin. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect ffence 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 has further submitted that and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On asking of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh, 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 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 nsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined 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 of ASI Tejbir has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has n accused only on the basis of the disclosure accused Sanpreet Singh @ Sunny, who was apprehended at the spot with 51 grams of heroin. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect ffence in question and it is a trite law that accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that and willing to join the investigation as and On asking of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh, 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 t of arrest, he 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 nsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be Tejbir in terms GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-20783 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 co 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 recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused available record. 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 anti 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 i petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those 20783-2026 3 nterim 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 nd, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused 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 ‘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 nterim 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 ncession 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 nd, 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 ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His cipatory 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- s no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those and is no longer submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought 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 nd, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either 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 ‘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 cipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner - s no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-20783 proceedings he was granted bail. Having 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." 8. In the present cas 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 st co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation in terms of interim 9. In view of the above, order dated 01.05.2026 shall continue to join investigation as and 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. 11.05.2026 Gurpreet 20783-2026 4 proceedings he was granted bail. Having circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure st 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 ion in terms of interim order/protection granted by this Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 01.05.2026 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 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 accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the protection granted by this Court. the petition is allowed and the interim is made absolute. The petitioner 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 regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending he petitioner is sought to be arrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the atement made by the accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the be a ground to decline the concession of especially when he has joined the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner 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 DERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.