Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 5484 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 November, 2025

               CRM-M-61966
                     61966-2025

                                                                                                  -1--
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH
               219

                                                                 CRM
                                                                 CRM-M-61966-2025
                                                                 Date of decision: 26.11.2025


               GURPREET SINGH
                                                                                       ....Petitioner
                                                        Versus

               STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                                     ....Respondent


               CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL


               Present:-          Mr. Ankit Kharbanda,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

                                                        *****

               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.167 dated 10.08.2025 registered under Sections 21(b) and 27-A 27 of the Narcotic Drugs gs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Amritsar

2. On 10.11.2025, the following order was passed: -

"Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the "Prayer BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.167 dated 10.08.2025 registered under Sections 21(b) and 27-A 27 A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 10.08.2025, SI Rajesh Kumar along with other police officials

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-61966 61966-2025

-2--

was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person, namely, Paramjit Kaur, who was fo found und in conscious possession of 6.91 grams of heroin along with drug money of Rs.250/ . Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the Rs.250/-.

                                 said co-accused
                                      co         Paramjit Kaur.

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 co-accused co accused Paramjit Kaur. 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 co-accused accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent respondent-State State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 26.11.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join 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/su bail/surety rety 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."

2023.

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-61966 61966-2025

-3--

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 10.11.2025 .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 o the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, ((on instructions from SI Rajesh Kumar),, 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 mater material ial 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 the available record.

7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592' 5592',, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating 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 provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the GURPREET NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-61966 61966-2025

-4--

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 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).

9. Further, the he 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.

Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co co-accused.

accused.

The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused.

accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner.

itioner. 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 peti petitioner tioner 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 the petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co co-accused.

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 accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-61966 61966-2025

-5--

trial and the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, petitioner especially when he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection protection granted by this Court.

11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 10.11.2025 10 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating ng 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) 26.11.2025 JUDGE Gurpreet

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

authenticity of this document.