Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.51 dated 12.6.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and Sections 186/279/307/353/427 of IPC, at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

¶2The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 6 Kgs. of heroin and ₹8 lakhs and 2 motorcycles allegedly recovered from conscious possession of his co-accused namely Gujral Singh @ Jogga, on whose disclosure statemento theo petitionero haso beeno

CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -2-

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learnedocounseloappearingoforotheopetitioner has further argued that the co-accused namely Gujral Singh @ Joga from whom the contraband is stated to have been recovered has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-62652-2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 2 years and 7 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶4Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.02.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

¶5I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶6Theo petitionero waso arrestedo ono 14.06.2023,o whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 7.12.2023. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. TheopetitionerohasobeenoimplicatedoasoanoaccusedoinotheoNAVEEN NAGPAL o CRM-MoNo.5021oofo2026oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-3-o o FIRoinoquestionosolelyoonotheobasisoofodisclosureostatementoofoPremoSingh.o Aso pero theo prosecutiono version,o thereo iso noo othero materialo availableo too connecto theo petitionero witho theo contrabando excepto foro theo saido disclosureo statement.o Ito iso pertinento too noteo thato sucho disclosureo statements,o ino theo absenceoofocorroborativeoevidenceoholdolimitedoevidentiaryovalueoandocannoto beo soleo basiso foro implicatingo theo petitioner.o Theo relianceo ono thiso unsubstantiatedo statemento raiseso seriouso doubtso abouto theo fairnesso ando objectivityoofotheoinvestigation.oItoisonotoinodisputeothatotheopetitionerowasonoto presentoatotheospot.oTheoveracityoandoweightageorequiredotoobeoattachedotootheo disclosureostatementomadeobyotheoco-accusedowillobeofullyotestedoatotheotimeo ofotrial.oTheorivalocontentionsoraisedoatoBarogiveoriseotoodebatableoissues,o whichoshallobeoratiocinatedouponoduringotheocourseoofotrial.oThisoCourtodoeso notodeemoitoappropriateotoodelveodeepointootheseorivalocontentions,oatothiso stage,o lesto ito mayo prejudiceo theo trial.o Nothingo tangibleo haso beeno broughto forwardo too indicateo theo likelihoodo ofo theo petitionero abscondingo fromo theo processoofojusticeoorointerferingowithotheoprosecutionoevidence.oo

6.1.o Atothisojuncture,oitowouldobeoappositeotooreferotooaojudgmentopassedo byothisoCourtoinoAnshuloSardanaoversusoStateoofoPunjab,opassedoinoCRM-M-65094-2024o(2025:oPHHC:004198),owherein,oafterorelyingouponotheoratioo decidendioofotheojudgmentsoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoTofanoSingho versuso Stateo ofo Tamilo Nadu,o AIRo 2020o Supremeo Courto 5592;o Smt.o Najmunisha,o Abdulo Hamido Chandmiyao @o Ladooo Bapuo versuso Stateo ofo Gujrat,o Narcoticso Controlo Bureau,o 2024o INSCo 290;o Stateo byo (NCB)o Bengaluruo vs.o Pallulabido Ahmado Arimuttao &o Anr.',o 2022o (1)o RCRo (Criminal)o762;oandoVijayoSinghovs.oTheoStateoofoHaryana,obearingoSpecialo LeaveotooAppealo(Crl.)oNo.(s)o1266/2023,odecidedoono17.05.2023,ohasoheldo NAVEEN NAGPAL thus:oo o CRM-MoNo.5021oofo2026oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-4-o o "6.3oo o Ito iso ao wello establishedo principleo ofo lawo thato ao confessionomadeobyoaoco-accusedounderoSectiono67oofotheoNDPSoActoiso inherentlyo ao veryo weako pieceo ofo evidence.o o Sucho statement(s),o byo themselves,o cannoto formo theo soleo basiso foro theo convictiono ofo ano individualoandomustobeoscrutinizedowithoutmostocautionoinoconjunctiono witho othero substantiveo evidence.o Moreover,o noo recoveryo haso beeno effectedo fromo theo possessiono ofo theo petitioner,o whoo haso beeno subsequentlyoimplicatedoasoanoaccusedosolelyoonotheobasisoofodisclosureo statementoofotheoco-accused.oHowever,oasoregularobailopertainsotoolifeo ando libertyo ofo individual,o Courtso areo obligatedo too strikeo ao balanceo betweeno safeguardingo personalo libertyo ando ensuringo theo effectiveo administrationo ofo justiceo aso alsoo investigation.o Theo finalo evidentiaryo valueo ando admissibilityo ofo theo disclosureo statemento madeo byo ao co-accusedo fallo withino theo domaino ofo theo trialo Courto ando areo too beo adjudicatedo duringo theo courseo ofo theo trialo ino accordanceo witho establishedoprinciplesoofolaw.oHowever,owhileoadjudicatingoaopleaoforo regularobail,othisoCourtocannotoremainoobliviousotootheocircumstanceso underowhichotheopetitionerohasobeenoarraignedooroimplicated,oincludingo theonatureoofotheoallegations,otheoevidenceolinkingotheopetitionerotootheo offenceoasowelloasotheospecificoroleoattributedotootheopetitioneroinotheo commissionoofotheoallegedooffence.oAoprimaofacieoexaminationoofotheseo factorsoisoessentialotooensureothatotheoprocessoofolawoisonotomisused,o abusedooromisdirected."o o

6.2o Asoperotheocustodyocertificateofiledotoday,otheopetitioneroisostatedo toobeoinvolvedoinomultipleootheroFIRs.ooIndubitably,otheoantecedentsoofoao personoareorequiredotoobeoaccountedoforowhileoconsideringoaoregularobailo petitiono preferredo byo him.o However,o thiso factumo cannoto beo ao groundo sufficiento byo itself,o too declineo theo concessiono ofo regularo bailo too theo petitioneroinotheoFIRoinoquestionowhenoaocaseoisomadeooutoforograntoofo regularo bailo quao theo FIRo ino questiono byo ratiocinatingo upono theo facts/circumstancesoofotheosaidoFIR.oRelianceoinothisoregardocanobeoplacedo uponotheojudgmentoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoMaulanaoMohd.o AmiroRashadiov.oStateoofoU.P.oandoanother,o2012o(1)oRCRo(Criminal)o 586;oaoDivisionoBenchojudgmentoofotheoHon'bleoCalcuttaoHighoCourtoino caseoofoSridharoDasov.oState,oo1998o(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o477o&ojudgmentso ofothisoCourtoinoCRM-MoNo.38822-2022otitledoasoAkhileshoSinghov.oStateo ofoHaryana,odecidedoono29.11.2021,oandoBalrajoov.oStateoofoHaryana,o 1998o(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o191.o

CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -5-

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶7In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

¶8In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 -6-

¶9Ordered accordingly.

¶10Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

10.02.2026 Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.5021 of 2026 Date of decision : 10.02.2026 Date of uploading : 10.02.2026 Amandeep Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..…….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab ---