In cases of cross-border drug smuggling, bail may be denied if the disclosure statement of co-accused is corroborated by technical evidence (tower location) and physical recovery of incriminating items, establishing a prima facie link to the crime.

Table of Content
1. factual background of drone-based drug smuggling and nomination of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the evidentiary value of disclosure statements versus corroborating technical evidence. (Para 4 , 5)
3. evaluation of tower location and physical recovery as sufficient prima facie evidence for denying bail in cross-border smuggling. (Para 6 , 7)
4. dismissal of the bail application based on the gravity of the offense and available evidence. (Para 8 , 9)

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in this first 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.65 dated 07.03.2025 registered under Sections 22-C and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 10 , 11, 12 of the Air Craft Act, 1934 at Police Station Anti Narcotic Task Force, SAS Nagar.

2. the brief facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are that a Border Security Force (BSF) Team found/recovered a drone in the area of BSF chownki, Raja Mahotam village Khunder Hithar, District Ferozepur and the said information was conveyed to ASI Satpal (ANTF, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur), who upon receiving the information, along with police party reached at the above-mentioned spot, from where the following recoveries were made:

i. One Drone (DJI MATRICE 300 RTK DRONE (MODEL:M 300)) (MADE IN CHINA),

ii. Five polythene containing 528 grams of Heroin in each polythene i.e. in total 2 kg 640 grams HEROIN.

iii. One green bag marked as Nike

iv. 6 Plastic indicator pipes

The above-said articles/items/heroin were taken into police custody and made case property in accordance with law and keeping in view the above facts, FIR No.65 (Supra) was registered against unknown persons.

3. On 08.03.2025, an FIR No.67 was registered against Joginder Singh @ Jinder and Judge Singh on the basis of secret information. The police party reached the house of Joginder Singh @ Jinder, where both Joginder Singh @ Jinder and his co-accused namely Judge Singh were apprehended. The recovery of 699 grams of heroine came to be effected from them. They suffered their disclosure statements to the effect that a smuggler from Pakistan, namely Chacha Baseri, was involved in drug dealing with them. The said Pakistani smuggler used to send drugs to them through drones. It came to light that on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025, Joginder Singh @ Jinder and his co-accused/Judge Singh were on call with the pakistani smuggler, Chacha Baseri, who initially sent three packets of heroin of 500 grams each through a drone, which both of them collected and took along with them. Later, one big drone with a large quantity of heroin was again sent. However, the Pakistani smuggler lost connection with that drone and told Judge Singh that he (pakistani smuggler) was not able to locate the same.

During the course of the investigation, Judge Singh made a disclosure statement stating that Gurmej Singh @ Geja (petitioner), his brother-in-law was involved in the entire drug supply chain with them. Gurmej Singh @ Geja used to keep a watch at the spot, when he and Joginder Sigh @ Jinder used to go to collect drugs supplied by the Pakistani smuggler. Gurmej Singh @ Geja used to get his share of money for his participation in the drug smuggling. It transpired from the analysis of the mobile phones used by the three accused that the tower location of each of them was the same village/spot i.e. Rao Ke Hitharon, on the night intervening 06/07.03.2025.

Therefore, all the accused came to be nominated in the present FIR as well.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which has little evidentiary value as has been held in the case of “ Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu ”, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592. As the petitioner is in custo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document