(207) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 JAGSIR SINGH @ JAGGA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Toor, A.A.G., Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 19.02.2025 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh District Malerkotla.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.2025 the police party apprehended Dharamvir Singh @ Kaka and Majinder Kaur @ Sona. The recovery of 262 grams of heroin came to be effected from them. On the disclosure statement of Dharamvir Singh @ Kaka, the petitioner was nominated as an accused.

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 his co- accused namely, Dharamvir Singh @ Kaka which has little evidentiary value. 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, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and 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 in custody since 13.06.2025, none of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and he was involved only in one other case bearing FIR No.85/2025 dated 01.06.2025 U/s 15/29/61/85 of NDPS Act P.S. Badhni Kalan, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, in custody since 13.06.2025, none of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that he was involved only in one other case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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 majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of s