CRM-M-39994-2025 ::1:: (236) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39994-2025 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 PREM SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.77 dated 21.07.2023 registered under Sections 21, 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana Rural. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2023 Jaswinder Singh @ Jas and Lakhvir Singh @ Lucky were apprehended with 1200 loose intoxicant tablets and 5 grams of heroin. On the disclosure statement of the accused, Prem Singh (petitioner) and Jaspal Singh were nominated as accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::2:: the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused, namely, Jaswinder Singh @ Jas and Lakhvir Singh @ Lucky who have been granted bail by this Court and the Trial Court respectively. Another co-accused Jaspal Singh has also been granted bail by the Trial Court. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657- 2020.”, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2024 and only 11 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there are two other cases bearing FIR No.244 dated 20.09.2022 U/s 21 and 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Sidhwan Bet, JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::3:: District Ludhiana and FIR No.225 dated 19.12.2024 U/s 21 and 29 NDPS Act, P.S. Division No.8, Jalandhar pending against him. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He is an accused in two other cases bearing FIR No.244 dated 20.09.2022 U/s 21 and 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana and FIR No.225 dated 19.12.2024 U/s 21 and 29 NDPS Act, P.S. Division No.8, Jalandhar. Further, though Jaswinder Singh alias Jas had been granted bail by the High Court, it was not brought to the notice of the Bench that he was a serial offender with five other cases pending against him under the NDPS Act. Similarly, Jaspal Singh who was granted bail by the Trial Court one other case under the NDPS Act pending against him. He, however, concedes that the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement, is in custody since 31.12.2024 and 11 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:- “4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::4:: Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. 5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree. 7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous. 8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. 9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::5:: 10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law. [emphasis supplied] 7. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023, it was 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 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-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.” (emphasis supplied) 8. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:- JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::6:: “It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co- accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the petitioners. The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020 (Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and 23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused, Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:- Still further, no conversation detail between accused Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::7:: involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep accused.” In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:- “Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not found in possession of any contraband article. Over and above that, the call data records may reveal that in an around the time of incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who were found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused.” A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material against the petitioners. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, as well as law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::8:: Magistrate and subject to their not being required in any other case. (emphasis supplied) 9. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:- “8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency. 9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. 10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (emphasized supplied) 10. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645- 2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:- JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::9:: “The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret information. He has been named only in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since 26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, he deserved the concession of bail. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co-accused. As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail in view of his antecedents. I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::10:: otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed. (emphasis supplied) 11. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement of a co- accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be granted regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary view was taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court held that where an accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested accused and the person named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said accused. In Ranjit Singh (supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib (supra) it has been held by this Court that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. 12. As regards the plea of bail being sought on the ground of parity, it may be apposite to examine the law in this regard:- In Neeru Yadav Versus State of U.P. & another, 2015(4) RCR (Criminal) 545, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::11:: “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.” (Emphasis supplied) In Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 AIR Supreme Court 169, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Court has been challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the same is JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::12:: pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the appellant's role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court. 19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.” (Emphasis supplied) JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::13:: 13. A perusal of the aforementioned decisions would reveal that where any benefit has been conferred on a person erroneously without any justification, other persons cannot claim the same benefit as a matter of right. 14. Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case, other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of his co-accused, the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the investigating agency. Further, a perusal of the order granting bail to Jaswinder Singh alias Jas in CRM-M-18329-2024 decided on 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-9) would reveal that quite apparently, the Court was not informed about the criminal antecedents of the petitioner therein who is a serial offender with five cases pending against him under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he was granted bail. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground of parity. 15. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail. Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39994-2025 ::14:: though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the said concession. 16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 31.07.2025 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2025.08.05 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document