[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2026
CRM-M-55685-2025
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206
CRM-M-55685-2025
Date of decision: 12.01.2026
RAMAN KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. S.A. Mor, Advocate with
Mr. Payal Biroka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG Punjab
assisted by SI Narender Kumar.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.113 dated 29.04.2025
registered at Police Station STF, SAS Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 21, 22 and
29 of NDPS Act.
2. On 16.10.2025, following order was passed:-
"Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.113 dated
29.04.2025 registered at Police Station STF, SAS Nagar, Ludhiana,
under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act.
Status report by way of an affidavit of Vatsala Gupta, IPS,
Assitant Inspector General of Police, Anti-Narcotics Task Force,
Ludhiana Range, filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Both the parties have been heard and material collected by the
police during investigation has been perused.
As per prosecution case, on 29.04.2025, on the basis of secret
information, co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Johny, Sunaina and Gurmeet
1 of 4
CRM-M-55685-2025
- 2-
Singh were apprehended by the police and 200 grams of Ice drug
(Amphetamine) was recovered from the conscious possession of co-
accused. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement of all
coaccused, 118 boxes of Spasmo-proxyvon capsules were recovered
from their possession. On interrogation, co-accused Jatinder Singh @
Johny suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased
the recovered contraband from Raman Kumar (petitioner).
Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has
been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 24.07.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The disclosure statement of
co-accused Jatinder Singh @ Johny, whereby he has been nominated as
an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There
is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence
and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the
benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that
petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the
conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory
bail be extended in his favour. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id#
2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as "Sahil Joshi Vs. State of
Punjab" and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as
'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab'. Learned counsel also placed on file
the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in CRM-M-18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail
application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer
and argued that the name of the petitioner has emerged during
investigation and disclosure statement of co-accused Jatinder Singh @
Johny has pointed towards their role in the present offence indicating
his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial
interrogation is essential to trace the source from where the contraband
was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve
2 of 4
CRM-M-55685-2025
- 3-
anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and
his name has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused
Jatinder Singh @ Johny. At this stage, there is no other material against
the petitioner except disclosure statement of co-accused Jatinder Singh
@ Johny. There are no call details between the petitioner and the co-
accused to point out towards his involvement. In Jugraj Singh's case
(supra), 5kg heroin was recovered along with a sum of Rs.17.50 lakh
drug money and main accused had nominated said Jugraj Singh as the
supplier and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered his release on
anticipatory bail observing that mere disclosure statement is not
sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. As such, it is a fit case
wherein benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended.
Adjourned to 08.12.2025.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-
interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as
envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C.]:-
i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior
permission of the Court;
iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3)
of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section."
3. Today learned State counsel has informed this Court that the
petitioner has joined the investigation, in compliance of the order dated
3 of 4
CRM-M-55685-2025
- 4-
16.10.2025 and is no longer required for further investigation.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 16.10.2025, whereby the
petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.
However, he shall continue to join investigation, if and so required by the
Investigating Officer.
5. Disposed of.
6. Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
12.01.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
4 of 4
