IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57867-2025 (O & M)

Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Ishpreet Singh .... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Advocate, with Mr. Supriya Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0029 dated 07.03.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 added later on) registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sunil Kumar and Satnam Singh were apprehended with 900 intoxicant tablets. Sunil Kumar disclosed that he used to sell the intoxicant tablets and heroin to Ishpreet Singh (petitioner).

3. 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, namely, Sunil Kumar. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever has been effected. 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. As the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025 and None of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, has placed on record the custody certificate dated 26.10.2025 of the petitioner. While referring to the same, he contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He is an accused in two other cases bearing FIR No.132 dated 03.11.2023 under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Banur and FIR No.151/2025 dated 19.06.2025 under Sections 22/29/61/85 NDPS Act, Section 52-A of the PA Act, Police Station Tripri Town, Patiala. He, however, concedes that the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement, is in custody since 11.03.2025 and that none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to