IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3261 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 12.01.2026 Jagdish Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Puja Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sourav Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for impugning order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and Charge-sheet dated 11.04.2025, whereby charge under Section 27-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been wrongly framed against petitioner.

2. As per the facts of the case, on 07.09.2024, the police party while on patrolling, received a secret information to the effect that one Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda, who is a driver, used to carry heavy amount of poppy husk in his truck bearing No.PB-11-CZ-2960 in a concealed manner and sell the same in Punjab. It was alleged today also he would bring a heavy quantity of poppy husk in his truck and in case the barricading is laid at NH-152, he could be apprehended along with the contraband. A truck as disclosed, was seen coming and the same was stopped. On asking, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name to be Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, he was given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act and thereafter, search was conducted. On conducting the search, 43 bags of poppy husk were recovered. The recovered contraband, on weighing, was found to be 765 kgs. He failed to produce any licence regarding the possession of the same, hence the FIR was registered and he was arrested on spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, Bhupinder Singh @ Pinda made a confessional statement that Anrej Singh @ Geja, i.e. owner of the Truck in question, ordered him to brought the said contraband from Rajasthan and thus, co- accused, Angrej Singh was also arrested on 12.09.2024. Thereafter, it is on the disclosure statement of Angrej Singh @ Geja, petitioner was named in the present case and he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court on the basis of challan presented, heard all the accused including the petitioner and framed the charges against them vide impugned order dated 11.04.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. She has submitted that the alleged contraband of 765 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from co-accused, namely, Bhupinder Singh @ Pinda, however on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, namely, Angrej Singh @ Geja, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the present case. She has submitted that the evidence against the petitioner is only the disclosure statement of co-accused, Angrej Singh @ Geja, which is not even an admissible evidence. She has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, 2021(4) SCC 1; “P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala” (2010) 2 SCC 398’ and “Union of India Vs. Balmukund and others (2009) 12 SCC 161’ and thus, has submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner but the learned trial Court in violation of the law settled has passed the impugned order and framed the charges under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, against the petitioner and the said order is being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On asking of the Court, Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel