Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Ashok Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This
petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.91 dated 06.07.2025, for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 21-C & 29 of Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Vairoke District
Fazilka.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the
FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Mahinder Singh’.
It was reported by the above named police officer that when he was leading
a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, he intercepted two
persons riding on a motorcycle. It is the case of prosecution that on the basis
of suspicion, when the search of their persons was conducted, from the
possession of ‘Lovepreet Singh alias Love’ 520 grams of ‘Heroin’ was
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 2
recovered.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
completed, and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during
the course of further investigation, accused Lovepreet Singh alias Love,
from whom possession the recovery of contraband had taken place, and also
the co-accused, namely Davinder Singh, who was accompanying him, were
interrogated they suffered their respective disclosure statements, wherein
they revealed that the petitioner was the supplier of the contraband.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.
Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.
Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed
custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal
reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has
orally opposed the present petition.
6. Heard.
7. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. The
State of Haryana‘ 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the
abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of
recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 3
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the
benefit of bail to the accused.
8. Similarly, in the case of ‘Surender Kumar Khanna Vs.
Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence‘ 2018(3) SCC
Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-accused is
inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a
substantive piece of evidence against other accused.
9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab‘, 2018(4)
RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement
of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not
against the co-accused.
10. In ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu‘, 2021(4) SCC 1 also,
it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act
cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.
11. The record has been perused carefully.
12. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of four
months and five days;
ii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 4against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-
accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with
regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned
statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-
accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since
pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no
recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has
taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement
appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam;
iii) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of
petitioner’, and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are
not attracted in the instant case;
iv) that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR;
v) that the investigation in this case is already complete and
therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near
future;
vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely
to serve any purpose;
viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 5
the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses;
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
13. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and another‘, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has
been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be
innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law
where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some
specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule
and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of
these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This
does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There
is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the
judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has
been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 6
and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a
necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.
14. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation‘ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the
abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in
criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice”.
15. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 7
are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society
and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently”.
16. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as
mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of
Punjab and another‘ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
17. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the
aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the
concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
18. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby
ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety
bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid
benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-
i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.22908 of 2026 (O&M) 8such facts to the Court or to any other authority;
ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond,
furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify
the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision
of the trial; and
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior
permission of trial Court.
19. It is, however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the
same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
30.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.30 19:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link
