[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jarmanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2026

                                                                           1

CRM-
CRM-M-10858-
      10858-2026




226
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                               CRM-
                               CRM-M-10858-
                                     10858-2026

Jarmanjit Singh
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                                                   Petitioner
                                        versus
State of Punjab
                                                                ....Respondent

Date of Decision:
        Decision: March 17,
                        17, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 17,
                         17, 2026

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate and
            Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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, petitioner in case bearing FIR No.50 dated 09.05.2025,,

registered for the offences offences punishable under Section Sections 21(b), 21(c) and 29 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS

Act'), at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar.

2. The gravamen of FIR in question is that the petitioner is an n

accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving

alleged recovery of 505 grams of Heroin from co co-accused of the petitioner,,

namely, Sukhpreet Singh and Karabir Singh, and on the basis of disclosure

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-10858- 10858-2026

of co-accused - Sukhpreet Singh, the petitioner has been implicated in this

case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 14.05.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has iterated that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not

scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers

from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming

arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner has

been nominated into the FIR question on the basis of disclosure of co-

accused - Sukhpreet Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 09 months. Thus, regular

bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner 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 the custody certificate dated

16.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2025 whereinafter, the

investigation was carried out and the challan stands presented on

18.11.2025. Out of total 16 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been

examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-10858- 10858-2026

long. The contraband alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused of

the petitioner is 505 grams of Heroin from co-accused of the petitioner, and

on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated,

in this case. As per 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

Punjab, passed in passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab

CRM-

CRM-M-65094- 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

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-10858- 10858-2026

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 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. As per custody certificate dated 16.03.2026 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 09 months & 27 days.

6.3. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is

stated 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.

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-10858- 10858-2026

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

Haryana 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. allowed Petitioner is In view of above, the present petition is allowed.

ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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

5 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-10858- 10858-2026

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.