IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Makhan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.31 dated 08.03.2025 registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 08.03.2025, ASI Kuldeep Singh, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, they apprehended one Anil Kumar, who was found in conscious possession of 1450 intoxicant tablets. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused Anil Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Anil Kumar. 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 co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further submits that recovery of 450 intoxicant tablets have already been effected on the disclosure of the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He argued that the alleged recovery of 1450 tablets from co-accused Anil Kumar and 450 tablets from the petitioner collectively falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR

2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".

6. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra).

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of