IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

223 *****

CRM-M No.4720 of 2026 Date of decision : 9.2.2026 Date of uploading : 9.2.2026 Shakti Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.175 dated 29.11.2024, under Sections 21(C) and 27-A, 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 25, 29 of NDPS Act & Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 added later on), registered at Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur.

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 288 grams of Heroin and ₹19,81,100/- as drug money allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely Avneet Singh @ Abhi, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-

accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 8.10.2025. 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 Avneet Singh @ Abhi. Learned counsel has also argued that the co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Avneet Singh @ Abhi, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2025 passed in CRM-M No.66441 of 2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than

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

3.2.2026 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 8.10.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 30.10.2025. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date as charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused- Avneet Singh @ Abhi, from whom 288 grams of Heroin and ₹19,81,100/- as drug money was allegedly recovered. It is not in dispute that said co-accused, namely, Avneet Singh @ Abhi has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. 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