IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12347-2025 Date of decision: 28.10.2025 SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SUNDEEP SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, 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.17 dated 09.02.2025 under Section 27 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Boha, District Mansa.

2. On 05.03.2025, following order had been passed: - “ The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.17, dated 09.02.2025, under Section 27 of NDPS Act but during investigation Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on, registered at Police Station Boha, District Mansa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been dragged in the instant FIR merely on the disclosure statement alleged to have been made by co-accused Satpal Singh despite having no material to connect him with the present petitioner. The attention of this Court has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to the fact that co-accused namely Satpal Singh was apprehended by villagers for consuming an intoxicating substance and was subsequently taken to the civil hospital and after getting the dopes test done, he was found positive. It was during this time, based on his disclosure statement that he mentioned to have received 2 ml of heroin from the present petitioner. However, the petitioner has been named as an accused even though no recovery has been made from him.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that after co-accused namely Satpal Singh was found positive in dope test, the petitioner’s name was included in the present FIR as an accused under Section 29 of NDPS Act based on his disclosure statement. However, no recovery has been made either from the petitioner or any of the other coaccused persons named in the instant FIR.

Be that as it may, the case is of glaring example in itself of false implication especially in the manner in which alleged disclosure statement has been highlighted to implicate the present petitioner with the allegation of supplying 02 ml of heroin to co-accused namely Satpal Singh though there is no incriminating material to connect him with the co-accused namely Satpal Singh who was found positive in dope test.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’

In addition to above, the State