CRM-M-6176-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr.No.206 Case No. : CRM-M-6176-2025 Decided On : May 21, 2025 Lakhwinder Singh .... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR. * * * Present : Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab. * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. : Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0107 dated 13.12.2024, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as – NDPS Act) and under Section 10/11/12 of Air Craft Act, 1934, registered at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in law. He has further contended that the alleged recovery in this case has been effected from the co-accused and petitioner was not found in possession of any MONIKA 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6176-2025 2 contraband. He has submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and has prayed that he be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Notice in this case was issued on 03.02.2025 and Status Report was called from the State, which was filed on 10.03.2025. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 30.04.2025, learned State Counsel sought time for filing supplementary Status Report along with copy of disclosure statement suffered by main accused – Amandeep Singh, which has been filed today in Court and is taken on record. Learned State counsel, while opposing the present bail petition, has contended that the petitioner has been specifically named in the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Amandeep Singh @ Kaka, to be the supplier of the contraband, which was allegedly recovered from his possession and possession of other co-accused. He has urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and granting him bail would hamper the investigation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and have also gone through the record. Though the alleged recovery in the present case has been effected from co-accused, yet name of the petitioner surfaced during disclosure statement of one of the co-accused namely Amandeep Singh @ Kaka. As revealed from the disclosure statement, the petitioner had links with Pakistani smugglers and he used to obtain narcotics through drones from India-Pakistan border area i.e. Khemkaran, Khalra. In the disclosure MONIKA 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6176-2025 3 statement, it has also been stated by the co-accused that the contraband, allegedly recovered in this case, was also supplied by the petitioner, which had been handed over by the petitioner to co-accused for further selling the same and getting commission after that. In the ongoing scenario of drug rackets being surfaced daily, the active drug peddlers are easily identified, who, more or less, are the scapegoats of the actual kingpins, who remain in the background and operate secretly. They need immediate identification to break the chain of smuggling of drugs in the Society. Keeping in view specific allegations against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is utmost required for complete and effective investigation to know the origin of contraband. So, this Court does not find any ground to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. May 21, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No. Whether reportable ? Yes/No. MONIKA 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document