Jagbir Singh @ Anmol vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3878 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3878 P&H
Judgement Date : 28 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagbir Singh @ Anmol vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026

               CRM-M-14784
                     14784-2026                               1


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH
               215

                                                                  CRM
                                                                  CRM-M-14784-2026
                                                                  Date of decision: 28.04.2026

               JAGBIR SINGH @ ANMOL

                                                                                      ....Petitioner
                                                        Versus

               STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                                    ....Respondent


               CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

               Present:-          Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate
                                  M
                                  for the petitioner.

                                  Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab
                                                             Punjab.

                                                         *****


               RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS"), the petitioner

seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.172 dated 11.06.2025, registered under

Sections 21(c), 23, 25 and 29 of the Narco Narcotic tic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act and Sections 103, 109, 238, 3(5), 105 of BNS, 2023 and

Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Act, at Polilce Station Gharinda, District Amritsar

Rural.

2. On 17.04.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -

"Prayer Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.172 dated 11.06.2025, registered under Sections

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-14784

21(c), 23, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Sections 103, 109, 238, 3(5), 105 of BNS, 2023, at Polilce Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement ma made by co-accused accused Harpreet Singh alias Happy and 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 the co co--

accused during his custodial interrogation interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Learned State counsel has filed the status report which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Adjourned to 28.04.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnis furnishing hing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023."

2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance

with the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-14784

the investigation. Hee has further argued that there is no connection between

the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be

implicated only on the basis of o the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Rajbir

Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms

of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer

required for further custodial interrogation. Sh She has however submitted that

since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought

not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. On a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counsel

as to whether, apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been

found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered

contraband, to which learned State counsel submitted that no materi material al other

than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either

the offence or the recovered contraband.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the

available record.

7. Further, the he 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 document.

CRM-M-14784

application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High C Court.

ourt.

The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co co-accused.

accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co co--

accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with petitioner.

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 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. In the present case also, the the petitioner is sought to be aarrayed rrayed

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

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 accused will be subject subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the

trial and the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, petitioner especially when he has joined the

investigation in terms of interim order/protection protection granted by this Court.

9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim

order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner

shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating