V/s v. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. ORAL

#1. On 11.05.2026, the following order was passed:- “1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.18 dated 17.03.2026 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Beant Singh, from whose possession the alleged contraband, i.e 7 grams of heroin, was recovered. It has been further contended that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. He has further argued that the recovered contraband falls within the category of intermediate quantity. Learned counsel further contended that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and CRM-M-26403-2026 2 willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, being involved 05 other criminal cases also. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is the admitted fact that the recovery in question has already been effected from co-accused; nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner. He has been implicated as an accused in the instant FIR solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Beant Singh. Furthermore, except for the disclosure statement, there is no other incriminating material with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of the offence. Moreover, the recovered contraband falls within the category of intermediate quantity. 7. The evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co- accused, in the absence of recovery or corroboration, is weak in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana', bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co- accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed." 8. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that the petitioner is involved in other cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(2) SCC 382’ in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in CRM-M-26403-2026 3 other/another cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.” 9. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 11. List on 10.07.2026.”

#2. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 11.05.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

#3. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated therein and is no longer required by the State for further custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated

11.05.2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

#5. Ordered accordingly. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be CRM-M-26403-2026 4 confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

#6. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

#7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

#8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

10.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No