Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14106-2026
Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
Date of Uploading: 19.03.2026
Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
*****
Present:- Mr. Kulwinder Singh Rathour, Advocate
for the petitioner.
(joined through Video-Conferencing)
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G, Punjab.
SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)
Present 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.105 dated 17.07.2024, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘), at Police
Station STF, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 1.5
Kgs. heroin allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely
Gagandeep Singh, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -2-
the disclosure of said co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2024. 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 has further iterated that sole basis to
array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused,
namely Gagandeep Singh. Learned counsel has also argued that the co-
accused of the petitioner, namely, Lovepreet Singh alias Love, Gulshan
Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Sandeep Kumar @ Titta have already been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
29.10.2024 passed in CRM-M No.49749 of 2024, 08.01.2025 passed in
CRM-M No.57291 of 2025, 10.07.2025 passed in CRM-M No.6748 of
2025 and 25.08.2025 passed in CRM-M No.44986 of 2025 respectively.
Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for more than one year and seven months. Thus, regular bail
is prayed for.
4. Learned 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 seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
17.03.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone
through the available records of the case.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -3-
6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2024 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and Challan qua him was presented on
13.01.2025. Total 31 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has
been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused
in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-
accused-Gagandeep Singh, from whom 1.5 Kgs. of heroin was allegedly
recovered. It is not in dispute that co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Love,
Gulshan Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Sandeep Kumar @ Titta have already
been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. As per the
prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the
petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is
pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of
corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole
basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated
statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the
investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the
spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial.
The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall
be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it
may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to
indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of
justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -4-
6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment
passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in
CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon
the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592;
Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of
Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB)
Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held
thus:
“6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by
a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak
piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the
sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized
with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence.
Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the
petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely
on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as
regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are
obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and
ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The
final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement
made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to
be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with
established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for
regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances
under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including
the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the
offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -5-factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused,
abused or misdirected.”
6.2. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala
versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:
089161) has held thus:
“14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates
emerge:
(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of
1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of
Section 37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.
(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-
applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is
procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-
applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in
Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the
conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be
successful.
IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in
Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”:
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant
material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited
purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of
guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of
scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the
final adjudication & culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any,
including material/documents in support thereof, may be
looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -6-plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail’:
(i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as
requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of
re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere
theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of
the bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including
the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to
him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved
into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in
another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in
the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in
the future.
(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail,
impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he
would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may
stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before
concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa
(Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police
Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in
commission of any offence after being released on bail.
In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition
may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of
condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of
exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the
conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend
upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts
and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can
possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for
satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case
has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt
is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to
the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such
matter.”
6.3. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37
of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
7. As per custody certificate dated 17.03.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of about 01 year, 07 months and 21 days and he is not involved in
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -7-
any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an
undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In 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.
9. In 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
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::
CRM-M-14106-2026 -8-
petitioner.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
March 19, 2026 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2026 06:35:12 :::