Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2238 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2026

       CRM-M-1899-2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

215                                              CRM-M-1899-2026
                                                 Date of decision: 10.03.2026

JAGJIT SINGH
                                                               ......PETITIONER

                                             Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                               ...... RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:      Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.


                            *****


SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail, is the first petition filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This

petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.196 dated

08.10.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18(B),

61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections

25, 54, 59 of Arms Act 1959 [Section 25(6,7,8) Arms Act was added vide

Rapat No.60 and Section 18C of NDPS Act was added and Section 18-B of

NDPS deleted vide Rapat No.19], Police Station Sadar, District

Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of ASI Manjinder Singh. It was

reported by the above-named police officer that on 08.10.2025, when he was

1 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of

suspicious activities, a person carrying a polythene envelope was apprehended.

According to above-named police officer, when enquiries were made from the

above-said person, he disclosed his name as 'Rajan @ Sagar'. As per above-

said police officer, on checking the contents of the envelope being carried by

him, it was found that in the above-mentioned packet, he was carrying 500

grams of opium. It was also reported by the above-named police officer that on

search of the person of above-named person one pistol, too, was recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned

recovery, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of

contraband, registration of FIR and formal arrest of the accused were

performed and further investigation taken up.

4. As per prosecution during the course of investigation when the

accused 'Rajan @ Sagar' was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement,

wherein he nominated co-accused 'Surinder Singh @ Palli' from whose

possession four pistols were recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that on

further investigation, the co-accused 'Rajan @ Sagar' suffered second

disclosure statement, wherein he nominated the petitioner and the petitioner

was arrested, from whose possession one pistol was recovered.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.

Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab., accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The

learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate. The same be taken on

record.

2 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

7. Heard.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. Since the involvement of petitioner in the present case is on the

basis of disclosure statement of co-accused the observation made in the case of

'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of

co-accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement

is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.

10. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR

(Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an

accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against

the co-accused.

11. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it

has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional

statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be

admitted in evidence, as a confession.

12. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for a

decision: -

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than four months and twenty one days;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that except the disclosure statement of co-accused, no other evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against

3 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

the petitioner. There is a question mark with regard to admissibility in evidence of above-mentioned disclosure statement of co-accused, as he was in custody at the time of recording of disclosure statement and nothing has been discovered pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement. Thus the disclosure statement appears to have been hit by Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

13. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and

another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a

fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus

has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is

another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect

of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is

that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have

4 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal

jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of

bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the

exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of

decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,

occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an

accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of

a case".

14. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Another' (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the

abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in

criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs

on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative

sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to

rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal

principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not

punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the

contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave

injustice".

15. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be

5 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution

has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and

extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our

justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and

the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in

order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

16. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another",

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

17. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,

involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion

that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition

deserves to be allowed.

18. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to

be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be

subject to following conditions:-

(i) 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

6 of 7

CRM-M-1899-2026

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

10.03.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

7 of 7