205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: March 30, 2026 RANJIT SINGH ALIAS RANA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 106 dated 25.08.2024 under Sections 21-B, 27-A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 2023, registered at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2. On 11.03.2026, following order had been passed: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.106 dated 25.08.2024 registered under Sections 21-B, 27- A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

25.08.2024, S.I. Jaspal Singh along with fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one Joban Kumar who was found in conscious possession of 100 grams of Heroin and Rs.35,580/- drug money. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against the said co-accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Joban Kumar. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and 210 CRM-M-9192- 2026 -2- willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Adjourned to 30.03.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.

5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 11.03.2026 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

March 30, 2026 JUDGE Rts