IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107)

Date of decision: 07.03.2026 Suraj Bhan @ Suraj Ram @ Surja Pandit .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.121 dated 27.09.2023 under Sections 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that secret information was received that Ram Niwas @ Niwasa Pandit, Suraj Ram @ Suraj Bhan @ Surja Pandit (petitioner) and Jamna Singh @ Jamna were engaged in selling of opium in Punjab and Haryana and would be bringing the same from other States. After dropping Suraj Ram @ Suraj Bhan @ Surja Pandit, Ram Niwas @ Niwasa Pandit and Jamna Singh @ Jamna would be going towards Moonak in their car for the purposes of selling opium. If a nakabandi is installed, the accused can be arrested. Based on the information, the car was intercepted. The driver disclosed his name as Jamna Singh @ Jamna and the person sitting along side who managed to escape came to be known to be Ram Niwas @ Niwas Pandit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery of contraband has been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657- 2020”, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner is a first- time offender, in custody since 27.08.2025 but only 08 out of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when a co-accused, namely, Jamna Singh @ Jamna has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated

22.09.2025 (Annexure P-3).

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery of contraband has been effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, in custody since 27.08.2025, only 08 out of the 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and a co-

accused has been granted the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the major