IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Pargat Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ 2. ‘ASI Baljit information, intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam (total weight recovered CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pargat Singh VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22 and 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Bhadaur The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Baljit Singh’, who reported that on 23.11 information, from the possession of Akashdeep and Gurpreet Singh, 960 intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam (total weight recovered. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.107 dated 23.11.2025 fence punishable under Sections 22 and 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred Bhadaur, District Barnala. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 23.11.2025, on the basis of a secret from the possession of Akashdeep and Gurpreet Singh, 960 intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam (total weight 142.08 gms) were (O&M) Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has .2025, fence punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of .2025, on the basis of a secret from the possession of Akashdeep and Gurpreet Singh, 960 were GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. 4. investigation, wherein they trafficking of intoxicant tablets. 5. 6. 7. down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co accused. The Hon’ble Supr afforded the benefit of bail to the 8. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused. CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 2 It is the case of the prosecution tha abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. The prosecution has further alleged that investigation, the abovementioned accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed that the present petitioner is involved in the trafficking of intoxicant tablets. Heard. The record has been perused carefully. To deal with the given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above afforded the benefit of bail to the accused. Similarly, in the case of ‘ Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is inadmissible disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other 2 It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. prosecution has further alleged that during the course of the abovementioned accused suffered disclosure statement, the present petitioner is involved in the he record has been perused carefully. situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co eme Court of India in the abovementioned case accused. Similarly, in the case of ‘Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other t pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were during the course of the abovementioned accused suffered disclosure statement, the present petitioner is involved in the situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana’ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co- mentioned case Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’ 2018(8) SCC 271, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. Court of India in the case of ‘ RCR (Criminal) 938 of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co 10. it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession. 11. in the light of above CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 3 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab’, 2018(4) (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused. In ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, 2021(4) SCC 1 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are anal in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that: (i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of than three-and-a-half months (ii) that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of his co question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the abovesaid co custody. Since pursuant to above statement no recovery or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the same appears to be hit by Section Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; (iii) that the petitioner has clean antece (iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from possession of petitioner; (v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; 3 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab’, 2018(4) , wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more months; that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the tement of his co-accused and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was abovesaid co-accused was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery or discovery of fact has taken place, the same appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; that the petitioner has clean antecedents; left to be recovered from possession of trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab’, 2018(4) , wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not also, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act yzed more that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the accused and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was was in police mentioned disclosure statement no recovery or discovery of fact has taken place, 23 of left to be recovered from possession of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, relevant, wherein criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that m incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 4 (vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not likely to serve any purpose; (vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and (viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not In the present case, the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, relevant, wherein it has been observed that “ criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large 4 detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not likely to serve any purpose; at there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in trial. the principles of law laid down by in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been ore and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not at there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or that there is nothing on record to show that if released on the principles of law laid down by the Dataram versus State of also a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been ore and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused perso circumstances of a case 13. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applicatio negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 14. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC India has observed that “ incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy tr 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 5 number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. The principles laid down by the in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applicatio negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which unitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy tr 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and 5 number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying n is the right thing to do on the facts and in the principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which unitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying n is the right thing to do on the facts and in the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case. the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor ns in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which unitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, ial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 15. fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as by Hon’ble Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 16. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner present petition deserves to be allowed. 17. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing satisfaction of shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 6 credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. To elucidate further, this Cou fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and 6 credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered personal bond and surety bond(s) to the . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed rt is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a , and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the ordered to the . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts at the time of execution of bond, furnish GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (iii) 24.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-14525-2026 (O&M) 7 , till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 7 , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document