Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2690 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026

250
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-14106-2026
                                               Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
                                               Date of Uploading: 19.03.2026

Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan
                                                                 .....Petitioner.
                                      Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                                       *****
Present:-   Mr. Kulwinder Singh Rathour, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
            (joined through Video-Conferencing)

            Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner

in case bearing FIR No.105 dated 17.07.2024, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), at Police

Station STF, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

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 1.5

Kgs. heroin allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely

Gagandeep Singh, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on

1 of 8

the disclosure of said co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2024. 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 Gagandeep Singh. Learned counsel has also argued that the co-

accused of the petitioner, namely, Lovepreet Singh alias Love, Gulshan

Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Sandeep Kumar @ Titta have already been

granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated

29.10.2024 passed in CRM-M No.49749 of 2024, 08.01.2025 passed in

CRM-M No.57291 of 2025, 10.07.2025 passed in CRM-M No.6748 of

2025 and 25.08.2025 passed in CRM-M No.44986 of 2025 respectively.

Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration for more than one year and seven 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, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

17.03.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

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

through the available records of the case.

2 of 8

6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2024 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and Challan qua him was presented on

13.01.2025. Total 31 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has

been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused

in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-

accused-Gagandeep Singh, from whom 1.5 Kgs. of heroin was allegedly

recovered. It is not in dispute that co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Love,

Gulshan Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Sandeep Kumar @ Titta have already

been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. 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.

3 of 8

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 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

4 of 8

factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."

6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala

versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:

089161) has held thus:

"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.

(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-

applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail- applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail

5 of 8

plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.

In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."

6.3. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37

of the NDPS Act stands diluted.

7. As per custody certificate dated 17.03.2026 filed by the

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

period of about 01 year, 07 months and 21 days and he is not involved in

6 of 8

any other case.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an

undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. 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.

9. 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

7 of 8

petitioner.

10. Ordered accordingly.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression

of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                       (SUMEET GOEL)
March 19, 2026                                            JUDGE
Yag Dutt

                    Whether speaking/reasoned:    Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable:           Yes/No




                                   8 of 8