IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 Satnam Singh @ Teeto ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, 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.75 dated 31.05.2025 registered under Section 21(b), 27(a), 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 31.05.2025, ASI Kamaljit Singh, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, they apprehended two persons, namely, Surinder Singh @ Shinda and Karanpreet Singh @ Katta, who were found in conscious possession of 50 grams of heroin along with cash amount of Rs.1100/-. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against both the said co-accused Surinder Singh @ Shinda and Karanpreet Singh @ Katta.

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 Surinder Singh @ Shinda and allegedly 7 gram heroin and Rs.500/- drug money was recovered from the petitioner and, 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. The alleged recovery of 7 grams of heroin has already been effected from the petitioner, which is marginally above the small quantity and nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2025. The investigation in the case is under-way. He further submits that 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. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. 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".

7. 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).

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou