IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.09.2025 Jagdeep Singh @ Daula ......Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG Punjab.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL The Prayer in this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0085 dated 16.12.2023 under Sections 22, 29, 61 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar, Punjab.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Jaskaranjit Singh @ Karan was found in possession of 2 Kg of Heroin. During investigation, he disclosed that the same was to be supplied by him to Jagdeep Singh @ Daula (petitioner) and Hardeep Singh @ Deepa. Based on the said statement both these persons were nominated as 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. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery of any contraband have 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 was a first-time offender, in custody since 21.12.2023 and only 01 of the 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The Counsel for the State contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was 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 was effected from her. He also concedes that the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 21.12.2023 and only 01 of the 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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 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 suppression of the vital fact