[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nirvair Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026

           CRM-M-12798-2026                   1




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH


           210                                            CRM-M-12798-2026
                                                          Date of decision: 18.04.2026

            NIRVAIR SINGH

                                                                                  ......PETITIONER

                                                              Versus



            STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                       .       ..... RESPONDENT


           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. R.S. Gill, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

                                Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

                                      *****


           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This

petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.102 dated

22.04.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18 and 29

of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Anti

Narcotics Force (ANTF), District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of Inspector 'Balwinder Singh'. It was

reported by the above-named police officer that on 22.04.2025, when he was

leading a team of police officials at Delhi Katra Highway Bridge, he received a

tip-off from a reliable source that 'Jasvir Singh @ Karan', 'Harpreet Singh @

Goldy' were involved in the transportation of huge quantity of opium to the

State of Punjab, and that on that day they were carrying a huge quantity of

contraband in a Swift car bearing registration No.HR-08-Y-7623. According to

report submitted by the above-named police officer, in view of above-

mentioned information the above-mentioned car was intercepted and it was

found that in the above-mentioned car Jasvir Singh @ Karan and Harpreet

Singh @ Goldy were travelling. As per prosecution from their possession

20.120 kg. of opium was recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of

above-mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and

sealing of contraband, filing of FIR and formal arrest of above-named co-

accused were completed, and thereafter, further investigation taken up. As per

prosecution during the course of investigation when accused 'Jasvir Singh @

Karan' was interrogated he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he

disclosed that the actual owner of the contraband was 'Nirvair Singh' (the

petitioner herein), and that they were simply the carriers of above-mentioned

contraband, on the instructions of 'Nirvair Singh'.

4. Heard.

5. The record has been perused carefully.

6. Since the involvement of petitioner in the present case is on the

basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, the observation made in the case

of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of

co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement

is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.

7. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR

(Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an

accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against

the co-accused.

8. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it

has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional

statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be

admitted in evidence, as a confession.

9. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in

the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

i) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and therefore, rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable;

ii) that the only evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of his co-

accused, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the above-mentioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than five months and half months;

iv) that investigation in this case is already complete, and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

"a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus

has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is

another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect

of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is

that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have

been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal

jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of

bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the

exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of

decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,

occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an

accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of

a case".

11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Another' (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the

abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in

criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs

on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative

sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to

rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal

principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not

punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the

contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave

injustice".

12. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be

said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution

has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and

extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our

justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and

the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in

order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

13. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another",

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,

involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion

that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition

deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to

be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be

subject to following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and