Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Joga Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-28026-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumit Dua
For the Respondents: Harkanwar Jeet Singh

Anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases may be denied to a habitual offender, even if originally implicated via a co-accused's disclosure statement, due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and the failure to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 when multiple prior FIRs exist.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Anticipatory bail - Criminal antecedents - Habitual offender - Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. nominated based on disclosure statement - Petitioner involved in three other pending cases under NDPS Act - Court held that given the multiple FIRs and criminal history, it is unlikely the petitioner is falsely implicated - Custodial interrogation deemed necessary to effect recoveries and logical conclusion of investigation - Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act cases - Disclosure statement alone - While disclosure statement may not be sufficient for conviction, when coupled with criminal antecedents and multiple prior FIRs, it warrants denial of anticipatory bail - Habitual offenders do not satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. (Paras 10, 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was named as an accused in an FIR registered under the NDPS Act following a disclosure statement made by co-accused persons who were apprehended with contraband. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, contending false implication based on such disclosure. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's history as a habitual offender with three other pending cases under the NDPS Act.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the existence of multiple FIRs against the petitioner over time makes it improbable that he was implicated arbitrarily. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner, as a habitual offender, cannot satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and custodial interrogation is required.

Issues: Whether an accused can be granted anticipatory bail when nominated solely through a co-accused's disclosure statement, especially given a history of multiple pending criminal cases under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused is a habitual offender with multiple pending cases, the disclosure statement by a co-accused, while not sufficient alone, justifies the denial of pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation is necessary to satisfy statutory requirements under the NDPS Act regime.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and the nature of the offence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions of the parties regarding anticipatory bail. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. review of precedents concerning disclosure statements and ndps bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. impact of habitual criminal antecedents on bail applications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final adjudication and rejection of the petition. (Para 17 , 18)

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 ( Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.35 dated 10.02.2026 under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act, (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar, Punjab.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sonia and Raj Kaur were apprehended with of 150 grams of heroin. Sonia disclosed the name of Joga Singh (petitioner) husband of co-accused Raj Kaur, Shreya Gulati and Avadh Nagpal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure statement of his co-accused without any corroborative evidence whatsoever. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. He has placed reliance 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 and Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657-2020 decided on 06.04.2022.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 03 other cases registered against him under the NDPS Act. He, therefore, contends that the criminal antecedents of the petitioner does not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991, 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 respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHJasjit Singh Bedi, JJoga Singh – AppellantVersusState Of Punjab – RespondentCRM-M-28026-2026

Anticipatory bail in NDPS Act cases may be denied to a habitual offender, even if originally implicated via a co-accused's disclosure statement, due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and the failure to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 when multiple prior FIRs exist.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Joga Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-28026-2026