Tofan Singh vs NDPS Act, are in

Punjab Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. R **** (cid:1) MANISHA BATR BATRA, J. (ORAL)(cid:1)

1. The instant petition has been filed The by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya N atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in ail in case arising out of FIR No.10 103 dated 13.08.2024 registered under Sections 21( 21(C), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drug Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for sho or short “NDPS”) at Police Station Du Dugri, District Ludhiana.

2. As per the allegations, on 12/13.08.2 As pe 3.08.2024, the accused Jasjot Singh and Khushmandar andar Singh @ Mandar were apprehe pprehended by Police and they were found to be in con in conscious possession of 21,000 an ts of 00 and 9,000 intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam 0.5 m

0.5 mg and drug money of Rs.15 Rs.15,050/-. They were formally arrested. During t uring the course of investigation, the a , the accused-Deepak Garg, Sandeep Singh and the pre he present petitioner were nominated n the inated as additional accused on the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- -2025 (O&M) 2 basis of the discl disclosure statements recorded by d by the accused Jasjot Singh and Khushmandar Sin ar Singh @ Mandar to the effect effect that they used to purchase intoxicating tablet tablets from the accused Deepak Ga oner. ak Garg and the present petitioner. The present petitio etitioner and accused Deepak Garg Garg were arrested on the same day and recovery of 1 y of 1050 tablets of Alprazolam was arg. m was effected from Deepak Garg. The accused Sand Sandeep Singh was also arrested sub ed subsequently. Two more persons namely Vikash Ha ash Harish @ Vicky and Rahul Hans d as ns @ Rahul were nominated as accused. It was t was found during the course of t the e of further investigation that the petitioner had con ad concealed a packet of intoxicating f her icating tablet at the residence of her neighbourer Rekha Rekha Rani. The petitioner was arres e too s arrested on 23.07.2025 and she too suffered disclosu sclosure statement admitting her involvement rime. the crime. Investigation qua h n qua her stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for th It is a l for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated icated in this case. In fact, she is a e is a victim at the hands of Police officials of CIA S CIA Staff. Her son had been taken taken into illegal detention on the intervening night night of 12/13.08.2024 by the officia officials of CIA, Ludhiana. A false recovery has been s been planted in this case. No reco t her ecovery has been effected at her instance. The sto he story that she had concealed som t her ed some intoxicating tablets at her neighbour’s house house has not been substantiated a ated as such no recovery has been effected even from n from the neighbourhood. Even she d for n she had been illegally detained for a period of 10 ho 10 hours by the Police officials and s and was constrained to file a writ petition before th ore this Court. Out of vendetta, sh she was implicated as accused subsequently by by the Police officials. She is The e is in custody since long. The investigation stand n stands concluded. Trial will take lude. take considerable time to conclude. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- -2025 (O&M) 3 Her antecedents ar ents are clean. Her further incarcerati rceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, thus is, thus, argued that she deserve to be r to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has Per co el has argued that the petitioner was actively involved olved in sale of intoxicating tablets in lets in connivance with her son and the co-accused. T sed. The allegations against her are e are er are serious in nature. There are chances of her co committing similar offences, if e The s, if extended benefit of bail. The rigors of Section 3 ction 37 of NDPS are attracted qua he qua her. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does n does not deserve to be allowed.

5. The petitioner is alleged to be invol The p le of involved in the business of sale of intoxicating tablet tablets alongwith her son, who was No o was running a chemist shop. No recovery has been s been effected from her. She was no as nominated at a subsequent stage of investigation. tion. On disclosure statements alleged In allegedly suffered by co-accused. In Tofan Singh Vs. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) d by 21) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Co ex Court that the disclosure statemen 7 of atements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are in are inadmissible in evidence unless unless corroborated by independent material. While th hile the veracity of the disclosure st ure statement against the petitioner will be tested dur ed during the course of trial, howev t be however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no r no recovery was ever effected from h rom her. The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025. .2025. There is nothing on record, t the ecord, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either w ither with the subject crime or to sho to show that he was connected with the co-accused in sed in any manner at the relevant evant time. Investigation has been completed. There There are bleak chances of conclusion lusion of the trial in the near future. ture. Keeping in view view the aforesaid facts and circum f the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinio opinion that no useful purpose wou e would be served by keeping the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58404- -2025 (O&M) 4 petitioner in custo custody anymore. Taking into cons o consideration the above discussed facts but without m thout meaning to make any comments ments on the merits of the case lest the same prejudic rejudice the trial in any manner, the er, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordere ordered to be released on bail, subject l and ubject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to s to the satisfaction of the learne learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty M uty Magistrate concerned.

6. In the event of there being any FIR In the t the y FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shal t shall be open to the respondent to g an dent to seek redressal by filing an application seekin seeking cancellation of bail.(cid:1)

7. Since the main petition has been all Since n, if een allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered in infructuous.(cid:1) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) (MA JUDGE(cid:1) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:1) Yes/No (cid:1)

05.02.2026 Amit Sharma (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.