IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (232)

Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Gurdial Singh .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, 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 is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.13 dated 27.02.2025 under Sections 21 of the NDPS Act (later on added Section 29 of the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Balkar Singh was found in conscious possession of 506 grams of heroin whereas Gurmeet Singh was found in conscious possession of 501 grams of heroin. During interrogation, they disclosed that the recovered heroin had been taken by them from Lakhwinder Singh. Lakhwinder Singh was arrested and got recovered 01 kg. of heroin. During interrogation, Lakhwinder Singh suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that negotiation regarding sale of heroin between him and co-accused Balkar Singh and Gurmeet Singh was done through Gurdial Singh (petitioner). On the basis of the said disclosure statement, Gurdial Singh and one Balkar Singh were nominated as accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused/Lakhwinder Singh 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 a first-time offender, in custody since 28.03.2025 and the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

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 concession of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner is a first-time offender and is in custody since 28.03.2025.

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 accu