Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 2025
229
CRM-M-40558-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40558-2025
Date of decision: 26.11.2025
MUKHTIAR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Ms. Nirmal Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab.
.....
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.0051 dated 21.02.2025 registered under Sections
21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force (Annexure P-1).
2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution,
on 21.02.2025, SI Sanjeev Kumar, along with his fellow police officials
was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, they
apprehended one Manjit Singh and Gursewak Singh, who were found in
conscious possession of 604 grams and 405 grams of heroin respectively.
Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said two co-
accused.
1 of 6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with
the said offence. He argued that neither the petitioner was present at the
spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the
petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure
statement made by co-accused Manjit 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 co-
accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery
is to be effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2025
and the investigation is complete, challan has already been presented. He
further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful
purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is
urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned State counsel, has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. Reply dated 26.08.2025 filed by the
State is already on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant
of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious
in nature and the recovery of the alleged contraband from the co-accused
falls under commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the
petitioner is involved in one more case meaning thereby he is a habitual
offender.
5. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding nomination of petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement is
concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the
2 of 6
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".
6. 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 Singh (supra).
7. 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 (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 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 material to implicate the
petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with
3 of 6
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."
8. The petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of
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 same
cannot be a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in
custody for the last more than 08 months & 29 days; investigation is
complete, challan stands presented, and the fact that trial may take a long
time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in
further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the
prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative
of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Reliance is placed upon in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is
proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life
4 of 6
and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is
against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
11. Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a
violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648, while dealing with an
NDPS case, held that the principles of fairness embodied under Article 21
override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the Court observed:
"20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the
court would look at the material in a broad manner, and
reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The
judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the
satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the
accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a
reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous
examination of the materials collected during investigation (as
held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on
ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by
Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A
which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref.
Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors
the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable .
5 of 6
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling."
12. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/another case(s), reference is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that
the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court
to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
26.11.2025 JUDGE
puneet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
