IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10516-2026 Date of decision: 25.03.2026 JASPAL SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Amarjeet Singh Prjapat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated 17.06.2025 registered under Sections 21, 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 17.06.2025, S.I. Sukhbir Singh along with fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and acting upon suspicion apprehended one Harmesh Singh @ Ramesh Katta and Ajay. Upon search, co-accused Ajay however managed to flee from the spot. Co-accused Harmesh Singh @ Ramesh Katta was found in conscious possession of 4 kgs 400 grams of Heroin and Rs.2,10,000/- drug money. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-

accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Ajay. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-

accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur vide order dated 05.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report and relying upon the same has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he has been specifically named by the co- accused as supplier of the recovered contraband. He submits that apart from the disclosure statement there are CDRs connecting the petitioner with the co-accused namely Ajay. He has further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to bust the drug nexus.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and he has been nominated as supplier of the recovered contraband. Apart from the disclosure statement there are CDRs between the petitioner and the co-accused connecting him with the co-accused. The investigation so far points towards deeper probe for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

8. There is steady increase in smuggling of illicit drugs these days. The increasing instances of drug smuggling in India pose a grave threat not only to the security of the nation but also impacts the youth of the nation. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and effective investigation in the matter and to bust the drug nexus.

9. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of t