IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43691-2025 Date of decision: 24.09.2025 MANPREET SINGH @ MANI ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Karandeep S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.45 dated 22.02.2025 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Division No.8, District Jalandhar.

2. On 20.08.2025, following order had been passed: - “ 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.45 dated 22.02.2025 registered under Sections 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the Act added later on), at Police Station Division No.8, District Jalandhar.

Status report filed by learned State counsel, in Court today, is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the case of the prosecution, on 22.02.2025, SI Mohan Lal along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person, namely, Vipin Kanauijiya, who was carrying a polythene from which 30 grams of heroin was recovered and initially the FIR in question was registered against him. During investigation, he suffered a disclosure statement, upon which Arman Bahlim and Rinku @ Gandhi were nominated as an accused. Later on, another accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Rinku @ Gandhi, two other persons, namely, Vikram and Lovepreet were also nominated as accused in the present FIR.

Learned counsel has further argued that it was the disclosure statement of said Vikram and Lovepreet, on the basis of which, the present petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apart from the said 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 custodial interrogation is not admissible. It has also been contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1235 and ‘Shubham Bansal @ Shiv Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab’ passed in Criminal Appeal No.3033/2024, decided on 23.07.2024 On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. While referring to the status report, it is argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Adjourned to 24.09.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and co-accused and the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Avtar Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the