Raja Robin Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3074 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raja Robin Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2026

                     CRM-M No.15437 of 2026                                                 -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                     238
                                                     *****

                                                                   CRM-M No.15437 of 2026
                                                                   Date of decision : 7.4.2026
                                                                  Date of uploading : 7.4.2026

                     Raja Robin Singh                                   .............Petitioner
                                                       Versus
                     State of Punjab                                     .......Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate and
                              Ms. Saroj Kumari, Advocate, for the petitioner

                                Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab

                                ---

                     SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.405 dated 10.12.2025, under

Sections 25(8) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 54 and 59 of Arms Act and Sections 21/61/85 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 added later

on), registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an

accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving

305 grams of heroin allegedly found in the possession of co-accused,

namely Akashdeep and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on

the disclosure of said co-accused Akashdeep Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 17.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not

been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent

defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the

petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely

Akashdeep Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner

has suffered incarceration for more than 3 months. Thus, regular bail is

prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

6.4.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2025. The matter is still

under investigation and challan is yet to be filed. Culmination of

investigation as also the trial, in case occasion so arises, will take long.

The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question

solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused- Akashdeep

Singh, from whom 245 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered (60

grams of heroin was alleged recovered from the present petitioner). As

per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect

the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement.

It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of

corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole

basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated

statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the

investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the

spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure

statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial.

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which

shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not

deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this

stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought

forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the

process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment

passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed

in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying

upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court

5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus

State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by

(NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.', 2022 (1) RCR

(Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing

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

has held thus:

"6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."

6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala

versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025

(2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus:

"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family

relative etc.

(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-

applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail- applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.

In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."

6.3. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act stands diluted.

6.4 As per custody certificate dated 6.4.2026 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 3 months and 18 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the

petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case/FIR. However, this

factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of

regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made

out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon

the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be

placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana

Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR

(Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High

Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 &

judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh

Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of

Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned

CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 7.4.2026 Ashwani

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No