CRM-M-34192-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-34192-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:23.07.2026 Judge ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.78, dated 26.03.2026, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act were added lateron), at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. 2. As per the allegations on 26.03.2026, accused Rajwinder Kaur was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and on conducting search, she was found in conscious possession of 92 loose intoxicating tablets. The recovered tablets were taken into possession by the police. She was formally arrested. On interrogation, she suffered disclosure statement to the effect that the recovered tablets had been supplied to her by the present petitioner, who HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34192-2026 (O&M) -2- was nominated as an accused. Offence under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was added. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 08.06.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He stand extended benefit of bail in another case as registered against him. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in the business of sale/purchase of contraband. No recovery has been effected from him. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whom the alleged recovery has been effected. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34192-2026 (O&M) -3- during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. Given the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required and a case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and shall join the investigation. He shall also join investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS. 8. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) 23.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document