IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

234 *****

CRM-M No.15396 of 2026 Date of decision : 7.4.2026 Date of uploading : 7.4.2026 Akashdeep Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.286 dated 29.10.2025, under Sections 21-B/27-A/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, Arms Act involving 100 grams of heroin and ₹1,50,000/- as drug money, was allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Honey Singh, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-accused and one pistol was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner after his arrest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Honey Singh,; and recovery of one pistol. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 5 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State has filed reply, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 6.4.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2025. Investigation in the FIR in question is still going on and challan is yet to be presented. The contraband of 100 grams (heroin) is stated to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused- Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Honey Singh, and one pistol was allegedly recovered from him. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding fro