CRM-M-69335 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 223 RANA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. Present:- M Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate 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 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot 2. On “ BNSS, 2023 is for g case FIR No.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathan 69335-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Pooja Rana, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, 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.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot. On 09.12.2025, 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.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69335-2025 Date of decision: 23.12.2025 ….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.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, following order was passed: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the rant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station - ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under otropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station Taragarh, Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the rant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.109 dated 04.09.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added lateron), at Police Station GURPREET 2025.12.24 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-69335 04.09.2025, ASI Balkar Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Mukul Saini, who was found in conscious possession of 07 grams of heroin. the abovesaid co petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at 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 the disclosure statement made by co st petitioner. 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 during his 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 invest 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 interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bon satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner 69335-2025 Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 04.09.2025, ASI Balkar Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Mukul Saini, who was found in conscious possession of 07 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the abovesaid co-accused. 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 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 the disclosure statement made by co-accused Mukul Saini in which he has stated that he had purchased the alleged contraband from the petitioner. 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 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. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent time to file status report in the matter. Adjourned to 23.12.2025. In the meantime, the petitioner is direc 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 bon satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner -2- Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 04.09.2025, ASI Balkar Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Mukul Saini, who was found in conscious possession of 07 grams Initially, the FIR in question was registered against 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 the disclosure accused Mukul Saini in which he has ated that he had purchased the alleged contraband from the petitioner. 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 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 On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, 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 admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner - Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 04.09.2025, ASI Balkar Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Mukul Saini, who was found in conscious possession of 07 grams Initially, the FIR in question was registered against Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He 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 the disclosure accused Mukul Saini in which he has ated that he had purchased the alleged contraband from the petitioner. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question accused 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 On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, State and seeks ted 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 ds to the GURPREET 2025.12.24 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-69335 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated the investigation. the petitioner and implicated only on the basis of 4. Learned counsel for the State, Lal), 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 concession of anticipatory bail. 5. On a specific query put by this Court to the lea 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 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 t judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: "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 69335-2025 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 09.12.2025 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 sta Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from , has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner ed 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 lea 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. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein t judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ reads as under: "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 -3- 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 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 Ram , 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. 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 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 "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 - 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 e has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner is sought to be Ram in terms of and is no longer submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought rned 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 statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the o a ‘Tofan Singh vs. , relevant whereof "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 GURPREET 2025.12.24 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-69335 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 confes 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 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 69335-2025 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 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 solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the -4- 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 sional 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. 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 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 - 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 sional 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 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 the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending arrayed accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the GURPREET 2025.12.24 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-69335 recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and the same cannot anticipatory bail to the p investigation in terms of interim 11. In view of the above, order dated 09 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. 23.12.2025 Gurpreet 69335-2025 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 09.12.2025 passed by this Court is made absolute. The pe 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 to be an opinion on the merits of the case. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -5- 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 to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No - 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 interim titioner 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 2025.12.24 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.