220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61552-2025 Date of decision: November 10, 2025 Harvinder Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parshant, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SSUUMMEEEETT GGOOEELL,, JJ.. ((OORRAALL))

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.117 dated 03.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force District ANTF Wing SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on the basis of secret information, co-accused, namely, Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi and the petitioner were apprehended by the police — 270 grams of Heroin was recovered from Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi. On the basis of disclosure of said co-accused, the petitioner has been nominated in this case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously 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 Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 06 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, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

08.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 03.05.2025 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 27.10.2025. Total 24 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 Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi. As per 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.

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 o