(223) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7023-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Jatinder Singh @ Sunny ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this third petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.31 dated 28.03.2024 under Sections 22(b), 29 and later on added Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the recovery of 200 loose intoxicating tablets were effected from Jaswinder Kaur and 500 intoxicating tablets from Jasbir Singh who happened to be husband and wife. They disclosed the name of their son-Jatinder Singh @ Sunny (petitioner) 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/Jaswinder Kaur and Jasbir Singh. 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 01.10.2024, only 05 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, though 02 PWs have been given up, he is entitled to the concession of bail even though there were 05 other cases under the NDPS Act registered against him.

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 05 other cases under the NDPS Act. Even otherwise, there are no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail when the 2nd bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-7). He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2024 and only 05 of the 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and 02 PWs have been given up.

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 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 an