Baljit Singh Alias Baljita Alias Jeeva vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 5957 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Baljit Singh Alias Baljita Alias Jeeva vs State Of Punjab on 2 December, 2025

CRM-M No.66373 of 2025                                                   -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
236
                                      *****

                                                    CRM-M No.66373 of 2025
                                                   Date of decision : 2.12.2025
                                                  Date of uploading : 2.12.2025

Baljit Singh @ Baljita @ Jeeva                           .............Petitioner
                                        Versus
State of Punjab                                           .......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

           Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab

           ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.151 dated 11.7.2025, under

Sections 21, 25, 27(a), 29, 61 & 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Jandiala,

District Amritsar Rural.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an

accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 20

grams of heroin and ₹1000/- as drug money, allegedly found in the

possession of co-accused, namely Gurjant Singh, Arshdeep Singh and

Shamsher Singh; and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on

the disclosure of said co-accused.

1 of 8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

is in custody since 12.9.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not

been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent

defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the

petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely

Gurjant Singh, Arshdeep Singh and Shamsher Singh. Learned counsel

has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more

than 2 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

2.12.2025 in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.9.2025 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on

20.11.2024. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has

been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused

in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-

accused- Gurjant Singh, Arshdeep Singh and Shamsher Singh, from

whom 20 grams of heroin and ₹1000/-as drug money, were allegedly

recovered. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material

2 of 8

available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said

disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements,

in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value

and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on

this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and

objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached

to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at

the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable

issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This

Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival

contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible

has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner

absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution

evidence.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment

passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed

in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying

upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court

5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus

State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by

(NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.', 2022 (1) RCR

(Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing

3 of 8

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023,

has held thus:

"6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."

6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala

versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025

(2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus:

"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of

4 of 8

any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.

(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-

applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail- applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he

5 of 8

would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.

In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."

6.3. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act stands diluted.

7. As per custody certificate dated 2.12.2025 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 2 months and 18 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the

petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case/FIR No.123 dated

19.8.2025 registered under the NDPS Act. However, this factum cannot

be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to

the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of

regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the

facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)

586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in

case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments

6 of 8

of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State

of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,

1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned

CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

7 of 8

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

petitioner.

10. Ordered accordingly.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2.12.2025 Ashwani

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

8 of 8