CRM-M-61480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 218 DESA SINGH ALIAS DES RAJ STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. 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 Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy (Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. 2. On “ BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. 61480-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: DESA SINGH ALIAS DES RAJ Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Jaskirat Singh Dhaliwal, 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.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, On 10.11.2025, 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.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61480-2025 Date of decision: 26.11.2025 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , Advocate for the petitioner. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, following order was passed: - present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 NDPS Act, 1985 added subsequently vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.2025), at Police Station Kabarwala, District GURPREET 2025.11.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-61480 18.09.2025, ASI Binderpal Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person namely Baljinder Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 800 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 petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. It has also bee been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co contends that the co has also been nominated as an accused on t statement made by co granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, passed in CRM the disclosure statement, there is no other evide the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further su 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 the respondent seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 26.11.2025 investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate 61480-2025 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 18.09.2025, ASI Binderpal Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person namely Baljinder Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 800 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. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Baljinder Singh. He further contends that the co-accused Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, who has also been nominated as an accused on t statement made by co-accused Baljinder Singh, has already granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, passed in CRM the disclosure statement, there is no other evide the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further su 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. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 26.11.2025. 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 -2 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 18.09.2025, ASI Binderpal Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person namely Baljinder Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 800 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused Baljinder Singh. 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 n contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure accused Baljinder Singh. He further accused Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, who has also been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure accused Baljinder Singh, has already been granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, passed in CRM-M-60317-2025. 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 accused during his custodial 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. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned 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 2 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 18.09.2025, ASI Binderpal Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person namely Baljinder Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 800 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question 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 n contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure accused Baljinder Singh. He further accused Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, who he basis of disclosure been granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order 2025. Apart from nce to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected bmitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and Ravinder Singh, DAG, State and seeks time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and GURPREET 2025.11.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-61480 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 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and implicated only on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, Harpinder Singh investigation petitioner and is no longer 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. 5. On a specific query put by this Court to 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 the available record. 7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: 61480-2025 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 482(2) of BNSS, 2023” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance the order dated 10.11.2025 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 stat Learned counsel for the State, Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the and is no longer required for further 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 On a specific query put by this Court to 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 sclosure 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: -3- 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 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance .2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He 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 from ASI , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the required for further custodial interrogation. He has 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 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 sclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof - 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 Section Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance .2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be on instructions from ASI , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the . He has 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 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 sclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a ‘Tofan Singh vs. , relevant whereof GURPREET 2025.11.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-61480 "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessiona under the NDPS ACT". 8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 9. 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 anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co 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 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 peti the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions 61480-2025 "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT". More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). 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 The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by 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 circumstances, the peti the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions -4- "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS l statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan 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: "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 ourt. His application for anticipatory bail ourt. 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 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 circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions - "155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS l statement in the trial of an offence More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan 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 application for anticipatory bail ourt. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by 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 tioner is directed to GURPREET 2025.11.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-61480 as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of." 10. 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 m 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 te 11. In view of the above, order dated 10 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. 12. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 26.11.2025 Gurpreet 61480-2025 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 m 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 10.11.2025 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 -5- 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 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 ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No - 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 ade 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 CHAHAL) GURPREET 2025.11.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.