IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Kabal Singh ....Petitioner

V/s

State of Punjab

....Respondent

Date of decision: 24.12.2025

Date of Uploading : 24.12.2025

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.133 dated 12.12.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District

Patiala.

2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the record, is that on 12.12.2025, the police party of Special Cell, Rajpura, while on routine patrolling duty near Rajpura – Sirhind Road at village Uplaheri, received specific and credible secret information that the co-accused Davinder Singh was transporting a heavy quantity of opium in Canter bearing registration No. PB-10-FV-4197. Acting promptly on the said information and after reducing the same into writing and forwarding it to the superior officers in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the police apprehended the

co-accused and effected recovery of 10 kilograms of opium from the said vehicle, which is a commercial quantity. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the involvement of the present petitioner surfaced. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle used for transportation of the contraband. The co-accused, during interrogation, disclosed that he was transporting the recovered opium at the instance and instructions of the petitioner. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was fully aware of its use for illegal transportation of narcotic substances. The petitioner was thus found to be an integral part of the chain of illicit trafficking.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in to the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the FIR was registered on the basis of alleged secret information that the co-accused was transporting opium in a canter bearing registration No. PB-10-FV-4197 and acting on the said information, the police allegedly apprehended the co-accused and recovered 10 kilograms of opium from the said vehicle, leading to registration of the present FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that the present FIR is a sheer abuse of the process of law and has been lodged in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. A bare perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner is not named therein and the entire allegations are confined only to the co- accused. According to learned counsel, the subsequent implication of the petitioner, without any independent corroborative material renders the prosecution story highly doubtful. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly made by the co-accused. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner pursuant to such disclosure nor is there any independent material on record linking the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has never visited Jharkhand and, therefore, the alleged disclosure statement is false on the face of it. Learned counsel has pointed out that the co-accused was merely engaged as a driver by the petitioner for the last about two years and his salary was paid through bank account transactions, which does not establish any criminal involvement. Learned counsel has further contended that the prosecution case against the petitioner rests mainly on the fact that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Mere ownership of a vehicle, by itself, does not establish conscious posses