CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683---- 225 225 225 225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurpreet Singh @ Jatta State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Bharatiya Nagarik regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR registered for the off Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Sections 27, 29 of the NDPS Police Station 2. accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of Leegesic of 2 ml each and 06 injections labeled as Avil of 10 ml each ----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Gurpreet Singh @ Jatta versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 27, 29 of the NDPS Act and 111 of BNS, 2023 added lateron) Police Station Sadar Rupnagar, District Rupnagar. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving recovery of 11 intoxicant Buprenorphine injections Leegesic of 2 ml each and 06 injections labeled as Avil of 10 ml each 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: September 22 September 22 September 22 September 22,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.34 dated 07.03.2025, ences punishable under Sections 22/61 of the Narcotic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Act and 111 of BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Sadar Rupnagar, District Rupnagar. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 11 intoxicant Buprenorphine injections labeled as Leegesic of 2 ml each and 06 injections labeled as Avil of 10 ml each from 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of , Narcotic (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving labeled as from MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 the co-accused, namely, Harvinder Yadav @ Dhaniya on 07.03.2025 by the police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Harvinder Yadav @ Dhaniya. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 17.09.2025 issued by the Assistant Superintendent Jail, Sub Jail Nalagarh Kishanpura (H.P.) in the Court today, which is taken on record. He submits that per said custody certificate, the petitioner is facing trial in an FIR No.73/2025, under Sections 20, 21, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Nalagarh as well, and is still lodged in the aforesaid jail though he has been granted bail in the said FIR. Learned State counsel has further opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2025 whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 02.07.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Harvinder Yadav @ Dhaniya. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus: “6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.” 6.2. As per aforesaid custody certificate dated 17.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh Akhilesh Singh Akhilesh Singh Akhilesh Singh MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 v. State of Haryana v. State of Haryana v. State of Haryana v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State of Haryana, State of Haryana, State of Haryana, State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----50683 50683 50683 50683----2025 2025 2025 2025 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 22 September 22 September 22 September 22,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment