CRM-M-27327-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CRM-M-27327-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Manak Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 7 dated 27.01.2024, registered under Sections 22-C, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 27.01.2024, co-accused Ravinder Singh and Paramjit Singh @ Pamma were apprehended by a police party, when they were coming on a motorcycle. Recovery of 3 kgs. 290 grams of Methamphetamine (Ice) was effected from their conscious possession. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in commission of subject offences. They also disclosed about involvement of co-accused Sarabjit Singh in sale/purchase of contraband along with them. As regard the present petitioner, they disclosed that about a month ago, he had given them 500 grams of heroin to sell and was demanding money in lieu of the same. Since they could not sell heroin, they returned the same to the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27327-2026 (O&M) -2- petitioner. On the basis of the said disclosure statements, the petitioner was nominated in this case as an accused and was arrested on 21.01.2026. Some other persons were also nominated in this case as accused. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offences. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither named in the FIR nor was found at the spot along with the co-accused. He has been nominated in this case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the abovenamed co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. No recovery whatsoever was effected from. It is not the case of the prosecution that the contraband, allegedly recovered from the co- accused, was supplied to them by the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he had supplied some heroin to them for selling, which they returned to the petitioner. It is further argued that the investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Involvement of the petitioner in two other cases cannot be made a reason to deny him bail. He is in custody since 21.01.2026. Main accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner into custody anymore. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report and custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27327-2026 (O&M) -3- the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the above named co-accused, from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband was effected. As per their disclosure statements, the petitioner had supplied them 500 grams of heroin. However, the recovered contraband neither include the said heroin nor any such recovery has been effected from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27327-2026 (O&M) -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 during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2026. 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. Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. Pendency of other cases against the petitioner cannot be considered to be a ground for denying him benefit of bail in given circumstances. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 10.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ans Waseem R. Ans Waseem R. Ans Waseem R. Ansari ari ari ari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document