IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-154-2026

Date of decision:07.01.2026

Dr. Kamaljit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate

for petitioner.

Dr. D.S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

…..

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.511 dated

16.10.2025 registered u/s 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 52 of Prisons Act at

Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

2. Abovesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of raid conducted by jail authorities on receipt of secret information on 15.10.2025 and upon search brown coloured intoxicating material wrapped in a polythene envelope was recovered from the elastic of shorts of prisoner Angrej Singh, who is confined in jail in FIR No.98 dated 13.09.2015 u/s 21 of NDPS Act and undergoing 10 years’ sentence upon conviction by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2024. On weighing, recovered intoxicating material along with the polythene envelope was found to be 29 gms. Thereafter, on investigation Angrej Singh disclosed that the said narcotic material recovered from him was supplied to him by Dr. Kamaljit Singh-petitioner herein and pharmacist

SUNIL CHANDER Gursahib Singh @ Sahib for sale in the jail. He further disclosed that

petitioner-Dr. Kamaljit Singh and pharmacist Gursahib Singh used to give narcotics substance for sale to prisoners and under-trials inside the jail.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has asserted that petitioner has been falsely implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement and therefore his custodial interrogation is not justified as he is ready to join investigation. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled P Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 to argue that on the basis of disclosure statement alone co-accused cannot be kept in jail at the bail stage.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent-State, on the other hand, has opposed grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is employed as a doctor in the jail and with the help of convict was running racket to sell drugs in the jail and therefore custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary.

5. On consideration, I find that present is a case where petitioner is employed as a doctor and has access to convicts as well as contrabands from outside sources.

6. In these circumstances, keeping in view the nature of involvement and position of petitioner, custodial interrogation of petitioner cannot be held to without any basis. No doubt, generally on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, bail is not denied to person so named only in disclosure statement. However, in present case, it is not mere disclosure statement but access of petitioner to convicts and outside world while being employed as a doctor in jail, is relevant and justifies custodial investigation of petitioner. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, present petition is dismissed.

(PARMOD GOYAL)

07.01.2026 JUDGE Sunil Chander