CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212) CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.07.2026 JASWANT SINGH ALIAS SONU … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, Asstt. AG, Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The instant petition constitutes the second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 80 dated 28.07.2025, initially registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which Section 29 of the NDPS Act was subsequently added, at Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga (Annexure P-1). The earlier petition preferred by the petitioner for the same relief stood dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2025. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.07.2025, a recovery of one kilogram of heroin, constituting commercial quantity, was allegedly effected from the conscious possession of co-accused Rahul @ GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Dagga, son of Jaanti. During investigation, co-accused Vishal Kumar @ Locha came to be nominated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by Rahul @ Dagga. Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by Vishal Kumar @ Locha, recorded vide DDR No. 18 dated 23.08.2025, the present petitioner, along with co-accused Kulwant Singh and Jaswant Singh @ Sonu, was also nominated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly having participated in the criminal conspiracy relating to the procurement and transportation of the recovered contraband. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statements allegedly made by the co-accused, which, by themselves, are inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law. It is submitted that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and there exists no independent incriminating material connecting him with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel further submits that there are neither any call detail records nor any other substantive evidence demonstrating the petitioner's active participation in the alleged offence or his involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy. It is thus argued that the petitioner's custodial detention serves no useful purpose and that he is entitled to the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for allowing the present petition. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 4. The custody certificate tendered by learned State counsel is ordered to be taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 4.1. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertain to the commission of offences involving commercial quantity of contraband, thereby attracting the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted that having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the quantity of contraband involved, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the statutory embargo governing the grant of bail in such cases, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, contended that no exceptional circumstance exists warranting the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioner, and the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 6. The record reveals that the petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2025. It is an admitted position that one kilogram of heroin, constituting commercial quantity, was recovered from the possession of co-accused Rahul @ Dagga. Initially, co-accused Vishal Kumar @ Locha was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of Rahul @ Dagga, GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) -:4:- and thereafter the present petitioner came to be nominated pursuant to the disclosure statement allegedly made by Vishal Kumar @ Locha. However, the prosecution case does not rest solely upon the disclosure statements. The investigation has further yielded material in the form of Instagram chat conversations, which, prima facie, indicate communication between the petitioner and co-accused Vishal Kumar @ Locha concerning the delivery of the recovered quantity of heroin. The evidentiary value and admissibility of such electronic material are matters to be tested during trial; nevertheless, at this interlocutory stage, the same constitutes prima facie material supporting the prosecution version. 6.1. Furthermore, the petitioner has not undergone such a substantial period of incarceration as would justify relaxation of the statutory rigours governing the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity. The recovery involved attracts the embargo contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and this Court does not find any reasonable ground to record the satisfaction that the petitioner is prima facie not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Consequently, the mandatory twin conditions envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act remain unfulfilled. 6.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during the course of trial, this Court finds no justification to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14053-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 7. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document