SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANPREET SINGH ALIAS PANCH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M_25603_2026



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-25603-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

221

CRM-M-25603-2026

Date of decision: 18.05.2026

MANPREET SINGH ALIAS PANCH

….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Parshant, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, 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.118 dated 09.12.2025 registered under

Section 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 331(3) and 305 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala.

2. On 07.05.2026, 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.118 dated 09.12.2025 registered under

Section 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 331(3) and

305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station

Sehna, District Barnala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He

GURPREET

2026.05.19 16:44

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document.

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-25603-2026 2

further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the

spot, nor was named in the FIR and he has no concern with the

said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner has

been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure

statement made by co-accused Harmail Singh @ Melu and

Amandeep Singh @ Gaggu, who were apprehended at the spot

with 20 grams of heroin. 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 custodial interrogation is not

admissible. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

Learned counsel has further submitted 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. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG,

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks

time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 18.05.2026.

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 fumishing 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.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance

with the order dated 07.05.2026 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.

GURPREET

2026.05.19 16:44

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document.

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-25603-2026 3

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of HC Gurmeet

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. She 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. On a specific query put by this Court to the 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 learned S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top