Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-17145
17145-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CRM
CRM-M-17145-2026
Date of decision: 28.04.2026
KARANDEEP SINGH
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate
M
for the petitioner.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab
Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS"), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.215 dated 14.08.2025 registered under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Polic Policee Station Anti Narcotics Force, District ANTF Wing, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
(Mohali)
2. On 17.04.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -
"Prayer Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the pe petitioner titioner in case FIR No.215 dated 14.08.2025 registered under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force, District ANTF Wing, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-17145 17145-2026 2 said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused, co accused, who was apprehended at the spot with huge recovery of 620 grams of heroin. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co co-accused accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to joi join n the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Adjourned to 28.04.2026.
In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as an and d when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on fumishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023."
2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-17145 17145-2026 3
4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions fr from om ASI Jarnail Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. Sh She has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no material other than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.
7. Further, the he Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as 'Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under:
"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C Court.
ourt.
The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co co-accused.
accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co co--
accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-17145 17145-2026 4 petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with petitioner.
allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of."
8. In the present case also, the the petitioner is sought to be aarrayed rrayed solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co co-accused.
accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused accused will be subject subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, petitioner especially when he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection protection granted by this Court.
9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating g Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 28.04.2026 JUDGE Gurpreet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No GURPREET 2026.04.29 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.