CRM-M-25455 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 204 GURVAIL SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- Mr. R.S. Sidhu, for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, 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 Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic D Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P 2. On the BNSS, 2023 is in case FIR No. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P 19.11.2025, police party was on a patrolling duty and on the 25455-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: GURVAIL SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, 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. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P On 20.05.2026, 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. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 19.11.2025, police party was on a patrolling duty and on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25455-2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn rief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 19.11.2025, police party was on a patrolling duty and on 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. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under rugs and Psychotropic Substances Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 202 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Section 21(B), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn rief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 19.11.2025, police party was on a patrolling duty and on the GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25455 basis of suspicion apprehended one Jaswinder Kaur and Manjinder Kaur who were found in conscious possession of 105 grams of Heroin and Rs.1200/ question was registered against the said co petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nei 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 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 investigating agency. the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. 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 inte satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 25455-2026 2 basis of suspicion apprehended one Jaswinder Kaur and Manjinder Kaur who were found in conscious possession of 105 grams of Heroin and Rs.1200/- drug money. 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 nei 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. Apart from the discl 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 by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has a the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Adjourned to 29.05.2026. 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 petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” basis of suspicion apprehended one Jaswinder Kaur and Manjinder Kaur who were found in conscious possession of 105 drug money. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-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. 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 On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are 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 rim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section basis of suspicion apprehended one Jaswinder Kaur and Manjinder Kaur who were found in conscious possession of 105 drug money. Initially, the FIR in Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He ther 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 osure 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 lready filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are 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 rim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25455 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated onl 4. Learned counsel for the State, Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation 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 concession of anticipatory bail. 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 recove 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 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’ 25455-2026 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 20.05.2026 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 of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner required for further custodial interrogation. H since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought ended 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 recove 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 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’ 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. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of ASI Gurpal 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 ended 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 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 Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: compliance passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined e has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be ASI Gurpal in terms 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 red contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either 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 GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25455 "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 applic 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 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 grante 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 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 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 20.05.2026 shall continue to join 25455-2026 4 "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 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 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 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 investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and 20.05.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when "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 ation 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- 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 d 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 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 investigation as and when required by the Investigating "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 ation for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner - 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 d 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 accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with 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 the the interim is made absolute. The petitioner by the Investigating GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-25455 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 29.05.2026 Gurpreet 25455-2026 5 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 Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 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 2026.05.29 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.