IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (223)

Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Pankaj Chaudhary @ Virat @ Chaudhary Pankaj Kumar .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, with Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0081 dated 22.05.2023 under Sections 22(C), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2023 at 6.30 pm, Gurmeet Singh and Surinder (since granted bail vide order dated 13.08.2024, Annexure P-2) who were both riding on a motorcycle were apprehended. The recovery of 3000 tablets of Lomotil and 8460 tablets of Lomotil came to be effected from them.

3. The arrested accused disclosed that they had procured the recovered contraband from a person named Raj Kumar (since granted bail vide order dated 13.08.2024, Annexure P-3). He was nominated as an accused in the present case on 23.05.2023.

Raj Kumar disclosed that he had purchased the intoxicating tablets from Sami Akhtar Qureshi (since granted bail vide order dated 19.12.2024, Annexure P-4) which he had sold to Surinder and Gurmeet Singh.

Based on the said statement, Sami Akhtar Qureshi was arrested and the recovery of 35,400 intoxicant tablets of Lomotil came to be effected from him.

On the disclosure statement of Sami Akhtar Qureshi, Farooq and Mujamil (since granted bail vide order dated 19.12.2024, Annexure P-5) were nominated as accused. Both were arrested on 24.05.2023. Farooq got recovered 34,800 tablets of Lomotil whereas Mujamil got recovered 11,400 tablets of Lomotil.

On the third disclosure statement of Sami Akhtar Qureshi that he used to purchase the intoxicating tablet from Pankaj Chaudhary @ Virat @ Chaudhary Pankaj Kumar (petitioner), the petitioner alongwith Kunal Gulati were nominated as accused in the present case on 27.05.2023.

4. 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 which has little evidentiary value. 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, State of Haryana versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991 and 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. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case bearing FIR No.8 dated 27.01.2025 under Sections 22(c) NDPS Act, Police Station Badali Ala Singh. As the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2025 but only 04 of the 32 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when four co-accused, namely, Surinder, Raj Kumar, Sami Akhtar Qureshi and Mujammil have been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide orders Annexures P-2 to P-5.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 27.10.2025 which