##PAGE1##

CRM-M-16325-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229

CRM-M-16325-2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026

BALJINDER SINGH @ BACHI @ BAJINDER LAL ….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, 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.48 dated 24.02.2026 registered under Sections 21, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

at Police Station City Moga, District Moga (Annexure P-1).

2. On 25.03.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -

“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.48 dated 24.02.2026 registered under Sections 21, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station City Moga, District Moga

(Annexure P-1).

GURPREET

2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-16325-2026 2

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on

24.02.2026, ASI Satnam Singh along with fellow police officials acting upon a secret information, apprehended Sunny, Vivek Kumar and Honey Singh who were found in conscious possession of 100 grams of Heroin. Initially, the FIR in question

was registered against the said co-accused persons.

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 Sunny. 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 willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the

investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to

file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 07.04.2026.

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.”

GURPREET

2026.04.09 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-16325-2026 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. He has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be

implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mokam Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. He has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought

not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.

5