[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2026

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                           CRM-M-19681-2026                                                          1

                               225      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH
                                                                      CRM-M-19681-2026
                                                               Date of Decision: 20.04.2026

                           HARJIT SINGH                                           ... PETITIONER
                                                            VERSUS
                           STATE OF PUNJAB                                        ...RESPONDENT

                           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

                           Present:    Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG Punjab.

                                                          ****

                           JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS,

2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.110 dated

21.09.2024 registered 21, 23, 25, 29 and 27-A of NDPS Act, Section 25 of

Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act at Police Station Dera

Baba Nanak, District Batala.

2. The present FIR No.110 dated 21.09.2024 U/s 21, 23, 25, 29 and

27-A of NDPS Act, Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of

Aircraft Act of Aircraft Act Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Batala

was registered on the statement of Subhash Chander, AC BOP Metla, Dera

Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur against Shubdeep Singh, Harjit Singh

(petitioner) and Taqdeer Singh. The said persons were apprehended and the

recovery of various articles such as Bank Passbook of HDFC Account

No.50100675174114 in the name of Sukhdeep Singh, Cheque book of same

person, Debt Card of PNB6070936218271994, PAN Card of Harjit Singh,

Aadhar Card of Harjeet Singh, Aadhar Card of Gurdev Singh, Lovepreet

Singh's Aadhar Card, Driving License of Robinpreet Singh, Drug money of

Rs.47,900/-, US Dollar 1 dollar (one note) and Japanese yen-100 (one note)

came to be effected from them. On their pointing out, 2 kg 580 grams of

heroin and a drone also came to be recovered.

3. On the disclosure statement of Shubhdeep Singh, Manpreet

Singh (granted bail vide order dated 29.09.2025) and Lovepreet Singh were

nominated in the case vide DDR No.47 dated 24.09.2024. Manpreet Singh

was arrested on 29.05.2024.

On the disclosure statement of Harjit Singh (petitioner) one

country-made pistol was recovered vide DDR No.21 dated 26.09.2024 an

offence under the Arms Act was added.

On the disclosure statement of Shubhdeep Singh one Manik

(granted bail vide order dated 29.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-17646-2025) was

nominated in the case. Manik, Lovepreet Singh and Gurdev Singh (granted

bail vide order dated 29.09.2025 passed in CRM-M34341-2025) were joined

in the investigation after obtaining their production warrants on 27.09.2024.

On the disclosure statement, Shubhdeep Singh accused Vishnu

(granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-2030-2025),

Vishal (granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-1661-

2025) and Suneha were also nominated as accused. Vishnu and Vishal were

arrested on 28.09.2024. On the pointing out of Shubhdeep Singh one pistol

was recovered. Further, vide DDR No.24 dated 29.09.2024, Robin, Harry,

Jasbir Singh @ Bobby (granted bail vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in

CRM-M-58973-2025), Angrez and Sandeep Kumar were nominated as

accused.

On the disclosure statement of Manik, Gobind owner of DY

Enterprise, Shiva and 3/4 unidentified persons were nominated as accused

vide DDR No.26 dated 01.10.2024.

Further, on the disclosure statement of Shubhdeep Singh vide

DDR No.50 dated 03.10.2024 Ravi (granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2025

passed in CRM-M-4626-2025) and Sandeep were nominated as accused.

On the disclosure statement of Ravi, one Gagan (granted bail

vide order dated 07.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-25908-2025) was nominated

in the present case and on the disclosure statement of Sandeep Kumar

(granted bail vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in CRMM-62386-2024),

one Balbir Singh (granted bail vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in CRM-

M-2658-2025) (owner of Hotel Alpine) was nominated as an accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that

the name of the petitioner figures in the disclosure statement of their co-

accused which has little evidentiary value. Reliance is placed 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, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 991 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-

M39657-2020, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the

concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure

statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence

against the accused. As the petitioner is a first-time offender, is in custody

since 21.09.2024 and none of the 34 prosecution witnesses has been

examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail moreso when 10

coaccused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in

view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is

not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the

petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, is a

first-time offender, is in custody since 21.09.2024, none of the 34 prosecution

witnesses has been examined so far and that 10 co-accused of the petitioner

have been granted the concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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

Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), 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.

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

[emphasis supplied]

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)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State by (NCB)

Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (supra), held as under:-

" 9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitionerNCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A1 and A-2 in the

first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitionerNCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773- 74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.

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 petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two coaccused

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.

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.

(emphasis supplied)

8. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that bail

can be granted to an accused where he has been named in a disclosure

statement of his co-accused but there is no recovery from him on his arrest

and the CDRs do not disclose the actual conversation that transpired between

the accused from whom the recovery was effected and the one named in the

disclosure statement.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the disclosure

statement of his co-accused. Further, the petitioner is a first-time offender, is

in custody since 21.09.2024 and none of the 34 prosecution witnesses has

been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to

be concluded anytime soon. Hence, the further incarceration of the petitioner