Rajvir Singh v. State of Punjab

Present:- Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated 426 Police Station

24.09.2024 City Barnala, District Barnala Sections 21, 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

#2. As per the allegations, on 24.09.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that accused Ajay Sharma, Harpreet Singh @ Pita, Amrit Pal Singh @ Chucha, Sukdev Ram @ Sukhu were involved in the sale of intoxicants and on that very day also, with intent to sell such CRM-M No.19764 of 2026 -2- intoxicants, they were roaming in the area of grain market, Barnala in a Verna car and they could be apprehended with contraband. A raiding pary was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended four persons while sitting in a car. On conducting search, recovery of 50 grams of heroin, 50 tablets of Etizolam salt and drug money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was effected from their conscious possession which was taken into custody by the police. The above named accused were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosures, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the allegation that he was part of the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused for procuring and sale of recovered contraband. Offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act was added. The petitioner who was already lodged in jail in connection with some other case was joined into investigation of this case and was formally arrested on 03.06.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected at his instance. He is in custody for a period of more than 01 year and 01 month. The co-accused Ajay Sharma @ Gora, Harpreet Singh @ Peeta, Amritpal Singh and Preet have been extended benefit of bail. His case is at a better footing and as such CRM-M No.19764 of 2026 -3- he too deserves the same concession. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitoner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

#6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

#7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused from whom recovery of contraband has been effected. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, CRM-M No.19764 of 2026 -4- it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since

03.06.2025. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. CRM-M No.19764 of 2026 -5- (iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. (iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) the petitioner shall give details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.

#8. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

#9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

20.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No