A co-accused's disclosure statement is insufficient to deny anticipatory bail without corroborating evidence directly linking the accused to the crime.

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (For short “ BNSS ”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14 dated 02.07.2025 under Sections 25 /54/59 of the Arms Act , 1959 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Crime Branch, UT Chandigarh.

2. On 01.09.2025, following order had been passed: - “ Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS , 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 02.07.2025 registered under Sections 25 /54/59 of Arms Act , 1959 and Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985, at Police Station Crime Branch, UT Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that as per the case of the prosecution, on 01.07.2025, SI Mohinder Kumar along with other police officials was on patrolling duty. On suspicion, they apprehended one person, namely, Sukhdeep Singh, who was found in conscious possession of 40.67 grams of heroin, which falls under the category of non- commercial quantity. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the above said co-accused Sukhdeep Singh.

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor has any concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sukhdeep Singh. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Further, co-accused Sukhdeep Singh, from whom the recovery of alleged contraband had been effected, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 06.08.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Addl. P.P., UT, Chandigarh, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-UT and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 01.10.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS , 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and co-accused and the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Manmohan Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. He has further submitted that since the FIR