JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0076 dated 11.02.2026 under Sections 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Samrala, Police Distt. Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.02.2026, during the checking of vehicles by the police party, a Swift car bearing Registration No.PB-01-E-1505 was stopped. On asking, the driver of the car disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh alias Gora and the person sitting on the conductor seat disclosed his name as Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh. From the dashboard of the car, a black coloured polythene was recovered and a recovery of 150 grams of heroin and Rs.1,20,000/- drug money came to be effected from the same. During the course of the investigation, Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh disclosed the name of the petitioner-Gurjant Singh @ Janta as the supplier. Further, recovery of 25 grams of heroin and drug money of Rs.3 lacs was effected from one Ricky Sharma and drug money to the tune of Rs.7 lacs came to be recovered from Falgun Patel.

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/Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh 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 decided on 06.04.2022, 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. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case bearing FIR No.11 dated 06.02.2025 under Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act and Section 21 of the NDPs Act, Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur. As the petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2026 but none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case registered against him vide FIR No.11 dated 06.02.2025. He further 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, is in custody since 13.02.2026 and that none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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

7. 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 judgmen