Buta Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 2026

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                           CRM-M-18128-2026
                                                                 ::1::


                                (104) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                          CRM-M-18128-2026 (O & M)
                                                                           Date of Decision:06.04.2026

                           Buta Singh

                                                                                              ... Petitioner
                                 Versus

                           State of Punjab                                                 ...Respondent


                           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
                           Present:     Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate
                                        for the petitioner.

                                        Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                                              ****
                           JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023

(Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR

No.09 dated 14.01.2026 under Sections 21, 27, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS

Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa, Punjab.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Vinay Kumar was

apprehended and the recovery of 16 grams of heroin came to be effected from

him. During the course of investigation, he disclosed that he purchased the

recovered heroin from Buta Singh (petitioner).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure

statement of his co-accused without any corroborative evidence whatsoever.

Therefore, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. He placed

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::2::

reliance on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil

Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus

Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna

Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3)

RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad

Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal &

Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh

Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of

Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends

that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 03 other cases registered against

him under the NDPS Act. He, therefore, contends that the criminal

antecedents and the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to the grant

of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-

"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::3::

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.

10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::4::

Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.

[emphasis supplied]

7. In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special

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

(emphasis supplied)

8. This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,

CRM-M-39657-2020, held as under:-

"It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::5::

petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co- accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the petitioners.

The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020 (Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and 23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case has already been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioners are not involved in any other case. With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the coaccused, Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:-

Still further, no conversation detail between accused Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also involved in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any connected with Ramesh Kumar Patil.

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::6::

In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep accused."

In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:-

"Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not found in possession of any contraband article. Over and above that, the call data records may reveal that in an around the time of incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who were found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused."

A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material against the petitioners.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, as well as law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to their not being required in any other case.

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::7::

(emphasis supplied)

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Vigin K.

Varghese 2025 INSC 1316, held as under:-

16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court includes the Union's assertion that the respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.

17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution's assertions of operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.

18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised by the High Court while considering the grant of bail.

However, offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a distinct statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on the grant of bail and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on the twin requirements noticed above, in

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::8::

addition to the ordinary tests under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

19. In the present case, the High Court has not undertaken the analysis of those twin requirements with reference to the material placed by the prosecution. The orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025 do not advert to the allegation regarding the respondent's prior involvement in a seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances only days prior to the seizure forming the subject matter of the present complaint, nor do they engage with the prosecution's assertion as to the respondent's role in arranging, importing, clearing and supervising the consignments. The omission to consider these factors bears directly upon the statutory satisfaction required by Section 37(1)

(b).

20. We are of the view that, in the facts of this case, it would not be appropriate for this Court at the threshold stage itself to render findings on whether there are or not reasonable grounds, for believing that the respondent is not guilty, or on whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. That factual assessment, which the statute requires to be made and recorded with reasons, is one that the High Court must undertake upon a complete and fair appraisal of the rival contentions based on materials placed before it.

21. In our considered view, the interests of justice would be met if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the respondent's prayer for bail, keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the nature and quantity of contraband alleged to have been seized including 50.232 kilograms of Cocaine on 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022, the role attributed to the respondent in the said import, the allegation of his involvement in an earlier

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::9::

seizure of 198.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of cocaine in early October 2022, the period of custody undergone since October 2022, and the stage of trial before the Special Court.

10. This Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab,

CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on 17.07.2023, held as under:-

"8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note here that other than the instant FIR in which the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in two other cases under the NDPS Act. In addition, he had been an accused in three other cases, though he has been acquitted in the said cases. It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency.

9. When there are multiple FIRs against a person over a significant period of time (in this case 18 years), then even though he may have been acquitted in some of those cases, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied.

10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect necessary recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

(emphasized supplied)

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::10::

11. This Court in Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-

31645-2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held as under:-

"The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor in the secret information. He has been named only in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise since the recovery effected from him of 3 Kgs of Poppy Husk is of non commercial quantity, therefore the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in custody since 26.05.2022 and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, he deserved the concession of bail.

The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner is a trafficker along with his co-accused. As per the disclosure statement 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was to be supplied to the petitioner. Further he is involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act as also one case under the Excise Act and, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail in view of his antecedents.

I have heard counsel for both the sides at length. Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Subsequently thereto 3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at his instance which is a non commercial quantity. It may be relevant to mention here that limitations to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law inforce on the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR (Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::11::

involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under Section 439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even otherwise, assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the petitioner, that by itself would not ipso facto lead to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.

(emphasis supplied)

12. In Samarth Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

clearly held that an accused who had been named in the disclosure statement

of a co-accused was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail but could be

granted regular bail. However, in Vijay Singh (supra) a somewhat contrary

view was taken and the accused therein was granted the concession of

anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under

the NDPS Act in which he was on bail. In Vikrant Singh (supra) this Court

held that where an accused had been named in the disclosure statement of his

co-accused and there were CDRs/WhatsApp calls/chats between the arrested

accused and the person named in a disclosure statement then in the absence of

the contents of the conversation/chats bail could not be denied to the said

accused. In Vigin K. Varghese (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that bail cannot be granted without keeping in view the parameters of Section

37 of the NDPS Act. In Ranjit Singh (supra) and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur

Sahib (supra) it has been held by this Court that where there were multiple

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::12::

FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been

named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.

13. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to

mention here that other than the present FIR in which the petitioner has been

nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the

arrested accused, the petitioner is also an accused in 03 other cases under the

NDPS Act. The details thereof are as under:-

Sr. FIR No. Dated Under Sections Police Station Status No.

1. 30 19.03.2025 21-B, 27, 29 Sardulgarh, Pending Trial NDPS Act Distt. Mansa

2. 121 08.07.2025 21-B, 27, 29 Sardulgarh, Pending Trial NDPS Act Distt. Mansa

3. 184 19.11.2021 21 NDPS Act Sardulgarh, Pending Trial Distt. Mansa

14. In view of the above, it is highly unlikely that the petitioner

would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the

Investigating Agency.

15. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a

significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was

not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to

grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those

prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.

Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the

provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents. On the

contrary, in such case, where anticipatory bail is sought the custodial

CRM-M-18128-2026 ::13::

interrogation is certainly necessary even though the accused may have joined

investigation at an earlier stage.

16. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal

antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect

recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

17. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.

Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

18. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

06.04.2026 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No