(217) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6839-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Jograj Singh @ Jugraj Singh @ Yog @ Yoga @ Jojo ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Malkiat Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this fourth petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.30 dated 29.04.2019 under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, District STF Wing.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Gurgajajeet Singh @ Gurgaj (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 19.09.2025, Annexure P-2) and Gurjant Singh (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in CRM-M-8567-2021) came to be apprehended with 1 kg. 25 grams of heroin. During the course of investigation, Gurgajajit Singh @ Gurgaj disclosed that he alongwith Gurjant Singh and Jugraj Singh @ Jog (petitioner) deals in the business of selling of heroin, on the basis of which he was nominated as an accused in the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused/Gurgajajit Singh @ Gurgaj. 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, 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 is in custody since 27.06.2023, only 06 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there were 07 other cases under the NDPS Act against him, moreso, when two co-accused have been granted the similar concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He is an accused in 07 other cases under the NDPS Act. Even otherwise, there are no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail when the 3rd bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 19.09.2025. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2023, only 06 of the 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and two co-accused have been granted the concession of bail.

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 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, 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 T ofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it