CRM-M-23850 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 222 ROHIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- M Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, 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 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P 2. On 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under Section 21 Act, 1985 (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added lat 23850-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: ROHIT SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, 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.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P On 30.04.2026, the following order “Prayer in the present petition filed 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under Section 21-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added lat IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23850-2026 Date of decision: 07.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL s. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for 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.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran (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.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on) at ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under otropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Sarai under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 26.03.2026 registered under B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances er on) at GURPREET 2026.05.08 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23850 Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P 26.03.2026, police party was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Babba who was found in conscious possession of 21 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 petit 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 statement made by co 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 in evidence. No 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 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, he shall be admitted to inter satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner 23850-2026 2 Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 26.03.2026, police party was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Babba who was found in conscious possession of 21 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co 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 statement made by co-accused Babba. A 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 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 by the investigating agency. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 07.05.2026. 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 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 Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 26.03.2026, police party was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Babba who was found in conscious possession of 21 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He ioner 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 Babba. 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 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 by the of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 26.03.2026, police party was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Babba who was found in conscious possession of 21 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He ioner 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 part 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 accused during his/her custodial 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 by the of the Court, Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG State and seeks 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 satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner GURPREET 2026.05.08 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23850 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 on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation 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 con 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 t available record. 7. Further, grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment 23850-2026 3 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 30.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. She 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 of SI Dilbag Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation terim 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 d, 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 t 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 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 has further argued that there is no connection between that the petitioner is sought to be disclosure statement of the co-accused. on instructions of SI Dilbag Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of terim 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 cession 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 d, 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 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section mpliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be on instructions of SI Dilbag Singh, in terms of 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 d, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either he 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 2026.05.08 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23850 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 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 30.04.2026 23850-2026 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 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 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 30.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner ‘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 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 ‘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 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 GURPREET 2026.05.08 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23850 shall continue to join investigation as and whe 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. 07.05.2026 Gurpreet 23850-2026 5 shall continue to join investigation as and whe 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 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 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.08 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.