IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Date of uploading: 06.03.2026 Harchand Singh @ Chand ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition is the second attempt, which has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.18 dated 26.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 404 loose capsules of maroon colour bearing marking of Proxywel Spas containing salt ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’ and 400 loose tablets of white colour containing salt ‘Dicyclomine Hydrochloride’, allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Parmal Kaur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not 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 Parmal Kaur. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 11 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, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 05.03.2026 in Court, 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 11.03.2025 and challan is still not presented. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Parmal Kaur. As per the 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 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 of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha