IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

241 *****

CRM-M No.60429 of 2025 Date of decision : 4.11.2025 Sahil Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 26.2.2023 under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 49,500 tramadol prolonged release tablets IP, 100 mg branded as Tramatrust SR 100 allegedly found from a bus and the persons namely Dudh Nath (driver), Nand Kumar Singh, Ram Kirpal and Dinesh Morya were present in the bus, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of co-accused Dudh Nath.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 28.5.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Dudh Nath. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 11 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

2.11.2025 in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 28.5.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 18.5.2024. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but one has been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused- Dudh Nath, who was driving the bus from which 49,500 tramadol prolonged release tablets IP, 100 mg branded as Tramatrust SR

100 were allegedly recovered. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon