[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2026
CRM-M No.13319 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
*****
CRM-M No.13319 of 2026
Date of decision : 9.4.2026
Date of uploading : 9.4.2026
Sandeep Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, 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.106 dated 2.8.2025, under
Sections 21, 27-A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Kathunangal, District
Amritsar.
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
576 grams of heroin and ₹2170/- as drug money allegedly found in the
possession of co-accused, namely Gurpreet Singh and Bikramjit Singh
and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of
said co-accused Gurpreet Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 6.8.2025. 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
Gurpreet Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner
has suffered incarceration for about 8 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed
for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of affidavit
of Kamalmeet Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division Majitha, Amritsar Rural, in Court today. The same be kept on
record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 8.4.2026 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 6.8.2025 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on
30.1.2026. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited and charges are
yet to be framed. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the
FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused-
Gurpreet Singh from whom 276 grams of heroin and ₹2170/- as drug
money was allegedly recovered. 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 8.4.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 7 months and 28 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner
is stated to be involved in one more FIR registered under the NDPS Act.
Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for
while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. 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
9.4.2026
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
