216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4904-2026 Date of Decision:-04.02.2026 JAGROOP SINGH @ JAGGA ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate with Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Navreet Kaur Barwala, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.170 dated 01.09.2025 registered under Sections 21-B and 27-A of NDPS Act, Sections 21-C/25/27-A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (added later on) at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Gaurav Singh came to be apprehended with 30 grams of heroin and drug money of Rs.1700/-, 400 grams of heroin was recovered from Vishal Singh and 300 grams of heroin and one pistol .30 bore was recovered from accused Pranshu. Vishal suffered his disclosure statement naming the present petition-Jagroop Singh @ Jagga as having supplied the contraband to him.

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. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery whatsoever had 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 & 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 a first- time offender, is in custody since 05.05.2025 but the report under Section

173(2) Cr.PC is yet to be filed, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, is in custody since 05.05.2025 but the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC is yet to be filed.

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 (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. Lea