Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajwinder Singh Alias Monu Deol vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 6275 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6275 P&H
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajwinder Singh Alias Monu Deol vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2025

CRM-M-60022-2025 (O&M)                   -1-



219          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-60022-2025 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 16.12.2025

RAJWINDER SINGH ALIAS MONU DEOL
                                                          ......... Petitioners

                                     Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                           ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present :    None.

         ****
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. Today lawyers are abstaining from work.

2. The prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner in case FIR No.91, dated 06.10.2025, registered under Section

15/27-A of NDPS Act, (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), at Police

Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1).

3. Status report dated 08.12.2025 filed by way of affidavit of

Kulwant Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division

Rural, District Gurdaspur filed by respondent-State through registry is

taken on record.

4. On 29.10.2025, 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.91 dated 06.10.2025 registered at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur under Sections 15/27-A of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on).

Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the State. Both the parties have been heard and material collected by

1 of 3

CRM-M-60022-2025 (O&M) -2-

the police during investigation has been perused.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.10.2025, the police party was present near turning point of village Nanowal Kalan and was checking the vehicles. One silver coloured car Zen mark bearing registration No.PB-02- AW-3970 was signalled to stop. The said vehicle was beingh driven by Amandeep Singh and on search, 4 kg 714 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the said vehicle. On personal search of the co-accused Amandeep Singh, a sum of Rs.3000/- as drug money was also recovered from his possession. On interrogation, co-accused Amandeep Singh disclosed the name of the petitioner-Rajwinder Singh @ Monu Deol as the buyer of the contraband. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.10.2025 (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 Amandeep Singh, 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 cited 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 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 Amandeep Singh 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, the name of the petitioner has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Amandeep Singh, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure statement of co-accused Amandeep Singh. 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

2 of 3

CRM-M-60022-2025 (O&M) -3-

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 16.12.2025 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 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."

5. Today, ASI Jagdish Singh, P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan, Gurdaspur

has informed this Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in

compliance of the order dated 29.10.2025 and is no longer required for

further investigation.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 29.10.2025, 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.

7. Disposed of.

8. Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 16.12.2025 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter