IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1217-2026 Date of decision: 01.04.2026 RAVINDER SINGH @ RAVI ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.196 dated 03.09.2025 registered under Sections 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 03.09.2025, ASI Paramjit Singh, along with his fellow police officials laid a Naka and apprehended Satish Kumar, Sanjeev Singh @ Peetu @ Bini and Jaswinder Singh @ Koki who were on a vehicle. On search of the vehicle, 553 grams of Heroin was recovered. Initially, the FIR in question was registered against said co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sanjeev Singh @ Peetu @ Bini. 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 co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2025. The investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; however, charges are yet to be framed, as such trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that the contraband recovered is commercial. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. A query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which she answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the offence.

7. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR

2020 Supreme Court 5592’, relevant whereof reads as under:

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".

8. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio deci