(215) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 BALJEET SINGH ALIAS BALJIT SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Janya Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.53 dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur .

2. The brief facts of the case are that Balwinder Singh @ Bhinda and Ramandeep Singh @ Raman came to be apprehended with 3.70 quintals of poppy pods. They disclosed the name of the present 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, Balwinder Singh @ Bhinda and Ramandeep Singh @ Raman 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. As the petitioner was in custody since 09.01.2025 but the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC is yet to be filed and he is involved only in one other case bearing FIR No.15 dated 27.04.2023 under Sections 15(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Special Operation Cell Fazilka (30) Intelligence Wing (CID), District Fazilka in which he is on bail, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, in custody since 09.01.2025 but the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC is yet to be filed and that he is involved only in one other case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), 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 the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on b