An accused implicated solely through a co-accused's disclosure statement, without any recovery or corroborating evidence such as specific conversation intercepts, is entitled to regular bail, particularly when trial completion is unlikely and other co-accused have been granted bail.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.90 dated 08.11.2024 under Sections 21-C , 23, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station C-Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that recovery of 02 kgs. heroin came to be effected from Gurinder Singh alias Gurinder, Gagandeep Singh alias Gagan and Baljinder Singh alias Babbu. On their arrest, they disclosed the name of one Lovepreet Singh alias Love (since granted bail vide order dated 30.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-2859-2026) as the supplier. Lovepreet Singh alias Love was apprehended and disclosed the name of the present petitioner-Bhagat Singh @ Bhagat Kabir @ Sonu Bhagat as the supplier.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused/Lovepreet Singh alias Love which has little evidentiary value. 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. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case bearing FIR No.57/2025 dated 29.07.2025 under Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Kiratpur Sahib. As the petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2025 but none of the 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when a similarly situated co-accused/Lovepreet Singh alias Love has been granted the concession of bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case registered against him vide FIR No.57/2025 dated 29.07.2025. He further contends that in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused, is in custody since 06.07.2025, none of the 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that a co-accused has been granted the similar concession of bail.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), 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