(211) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 RANBIR SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.02 dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station STF, Mohali.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Harjit Singh and Sahiljeet Singh were apprehended with 510 grams of heroin. They disclosed the name of the Sukhjeet Singh. Sukhjeet Singh suffered his disclosure statement that the petitioner-Ranbir Singh was his hawala dealer. On the arrest of the petitioner, no recovery was effected from him.

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 namely, Harjit Singh and Sahiljeet Singh 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. As the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 but 02 of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined and he is involved only in one other case bearing FIR No.57 dated 14.03.2025 under Sections 21(C)/25/27-A/29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Gharinda in which he is an undertrial, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel 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, in custody since 11.06.2025 but 02 of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined and that he is involved only in one other case.

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

6. 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 was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responde