[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 1 December, 2025
CRM-M-56862-2025 1
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56862-2025
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
ARUN KUMAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Harpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG Punjab
assisted by SI Hemraj Singh Cheema.
****
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR
No.135 dated 01.08.2025 registered at Police Station Dakha, District
Ludhiana Rural under Sections 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act.
2. In compliance of order dated 09.10.2025 passed by this
Court, status report by way of an affidavit dated 29.11.2025 of Varinder
Singh Khosa, PPS, DSP, Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural) filed on behalf
of the respondent-State is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the
same at an appropriate place.
3. On 09.10.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.135 dated 01.08.2025 registered at Police Station
1 of 4
Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural under Sections 21, 25, 29 of
NDPS Act.
Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab,
has appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both
the parties have been heard and material collected by the
police during investigation has been perused.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
01.08.2025 in the area of Police Station Dakha, one Satnam
Singh @ Kochi was apprehended by the police and 130 grams
of heroin was recovered from him, when he was travelling in
Baleno car. During the interrogation, co-accused Satnam
Singh @ Kochi disclosed the name of the petitioner-Arun
Kumar along with
Karamjit Singh @ Karmu. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner
applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the
trial Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
disclosure statement of co-accused Satnam Singh @ Kochi,
whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible
in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no other
material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and
disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny
the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next
contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and
he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the
Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his
favour. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has cited
the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409,
2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as "Sahil Joshi Vs. State of
Punjab" and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl)
No.9190/2025 titled as 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab'.
Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-
18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application
2 of 4
of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed
the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has
emerged during investigation and disclosure statement of co-
accused Satnam Singh @ Kochi has pointed towards his role
in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit
drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is
essential to trace the source from where the contraband was
arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not
deserve anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the
petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure
statement of co-accused Satnam Singh @ Kochi, from whom
the alleged contraband was recovered. At this stage, there is
no other material against the petitioner except disclosure
statement of co-accused Satnam Singh @ Kochi. There are no
call details between the petitioner and the co-accused to
point out towards his involvement. In Jugraj Singh's case
(supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of
Rs.17.50 lakh drug money and main accused had nominated
said Jugraj Singh as the supplier and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had ordered his release on anticipatory bail observing
that mere disclosure statement is not sufficient to connect him
with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case wherein benefit
of anticipatory bail should be extended.
Adjourned to 01.12.2025 for filing status report.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted
to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction
of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following
conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS
[erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:-
i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
3 of 4
police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the
prior permission of the Court;
iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted
under that section."
3. Today, on instructions from SI Hemraj Singh Cheema,
learned State counsel has informed this Court that the petitioner has
joined the investigation, in compliance of the order dated 09.10.2025 and
is no longer required for further investigation.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 09.10.2025 whereby
the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made
absolute. However, he shall continue to join investigation, if and so
required by the Investigating Officer.
5. Disposed of.
6. Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
