[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sony Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-11699-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.247
CRM-M-11699-2026
Decided on : 23.04.2026
Sony Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
***
Present : Mr. Satveer Singh Badal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
***
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 25.06.2024, registered under Sections
22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot.
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that on
25.06.2024, ASI Angrej Singh along with his fellow police officials was on
patrolling duty and on suspicion, they apprehended co-accused Lovedeep
Singh alias Balvir and Ravi Singh, who were found in conscious possession
of 10200 intoxicating tablets. Initially, the FIR was registered against the
said co-accused.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11699-2026 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in
the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an
accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by the above said co-
accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to
connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that
disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not
admissible. He has submitted that the similarly situated co-accused
Gurpreet Singh alias Gori has already been granted the concession of regular
bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025,
passed in CRM-M-16093-2025. No recovery is to be effected from the
petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2025 and he has clean
antecedents. The investigation in this case is complete; challan stands
presented and charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that trial will
take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to
be allowed.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report which is taken
on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by
submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.
However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is first time
offender as he is not involved in any other case.
5. A query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to
whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found
2026.04.24 16:01 during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband,
authenticity of this order/judgment
to which he answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with
the offence.
6. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is
concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2020 Supreme Court 5592', relevant whereof reads as under:
"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers
who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act
are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the
Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement
made to them would be barred under the provisions of section
25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in
order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a
statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be
used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under
the NDPS ACT".
7. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled
as 'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State
of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290', has reiterated the
ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tofan Singh (supra).
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant
of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as
'Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11699-2026 4
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."
8. The petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material
available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The
veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject
to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and same cannot be
a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last about 07 months; the similarly situated co-accused has already
been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented
and charges are yet to be framed and the fact that the trial may take a long
time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the
petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11699-2026 5
of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
23.04.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL )
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
