[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurranditta Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-22934-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M-22934-2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
Date of uploading : 30.04.2026
Gurranditta Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State Of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Lavanya Gupta, 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.196 dated 02.12.2025 under
Sections 22/27/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhagta Bhai
Ka, District Bathinda.
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
alleged recovery of 160 strips of Clovedol 100 SR tablets, each strip
containing 10 tablets total 1600 tablets containing Tramadol Hydro
(weighing 286.40 grams) from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Dara
Singh and the petitioner has been nominated in this case on the disclosure of
other co-accused namely Varun Kumar @ Vicky.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is
in custody since 03.12.2025. 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 Guraditta
Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for more than 04 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
28.04.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 03.12.2025 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan is yet to be presented. The
petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on
the basis of disclosure statement of Dara Singh. 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
JATIN 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, as per custody certificate dated 28.04.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 04 months and 23 days, & is shown to be involved in other FIR(s).
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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial
Court/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 cellphone 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 trial Court/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.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
30.04.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
