Sukhmander Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 December, 2025

3095: PHHC-177888 ©

CRM-M-62903 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
210 CRM-M-62903 of 2025
Date of Decision: 23.12.2025
Sukhmander Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
sk ok

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.152 dated 15.10.2025 registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sangat,

District Bathinda.

2. On 09.12.2025, following order was passed: -

"Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.152 dated 15.10.2025 registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

Status report filed by learned State counsel, in Court today, is taken on record.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 15.10.2025, ASI Navyugdeep Singh along with other police

officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret

2025-PHNC 177888 Bs

information, apprehended one person, namely, Amritpal Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 260 grams of heroin. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co- accused Amritpal Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the Said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by one co-accused Parvesh, who was also not named in the FIR but nominated as an accused on the disclosure statement of co-accused Amritpal Singh. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused Parvesh and he is indulged in the business of narcotic drugs. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

Adjourned to 23.12.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join

MOHIT 2025.12.24 15:09

2025: PHHC: 177888 |

investigation within a week from today and would appear as and 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 furnishing 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".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 09.12.2025 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.

4. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from Inspector Daljeet 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. He 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

7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a

3095: PHHC-177888 ©

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592', relevant whereof

reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are

invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS' Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".

8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as 'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290', has reiterated the ratio

decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan

9. Further, the 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 (Ctl.) 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 (hereinafier called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other

MOHIT 2025.12.24 15:09

2025: PHHG: 177888 |

material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with 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 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."

10. In the present case also, the petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-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 will be 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, especially when he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection granted by this Court.

11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

12. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be

construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2025 PHHC:177888 &

Whether reportable : Yes/No