Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M-6536-2026
Date of decision : 27.02.2026
Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
(through video conferencing).
Mr. Swapan Shorey, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Pal
Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, West, Ludhiana, on
behalf of the respondent-State, has been filed in the Court today which
is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel
for the petitioner
2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No.58 dated 14.06.2025 registered under
Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Ladhuwal,
District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
3. Vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court, the petitioner has been granted ad interim anticipatory bail
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 20:46:11 :::
CRM-M-6536-2026 2
with a direction to join investigation as and when called by the
Investigating Officer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
pursuance to the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to para
15(C) of the status report, submits that although, the petitioner has
joined the investigation, however, he is a habitual offender and
remained involved in 07 other following cases :-
Sr. Particulars Status No.
1. FIR No.01 dated 04.01.2009 registered under Section Convicted
15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Bhogpur, District
Jalandhar (Rural)
2. FIR No.20 dated 01.03.2009 registered under Section Acquitted
15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Bhogpur, District
Jalandhar (Rural)
3. FIR No.41 dated 15.03.2015 registered under Section Convicted
22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Ladhuwal
4. FIR No.106 dated 02.06.2014 registered under Acquitted
Section 22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Salem
Tabri
5. FIR No.96 dated 26.03.2018 registered under Section Convicted
21 of NDPS Act at Police Station Phillaur, Jalandhar
(Rural)
6. FIR No.169 dated 31.10.2019 registered under Convicted
Section 21 of NDPS Act at Police Station Jodhewal,
District Ludhiana
7. FIR No.125 dated 14.10.2021 registered under Convicted
Sections 457, 380 & 411 of IPC at Police Station
Bhogpur, District Jalandhar (Rural)
However, in para 12 of the petition, the petitioner has only
stated that no other FIR is pending or registered against him under the
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 20:46:11 :::
CRM-M-6536-2026 3
offence of similar nature or under any other offence except two other
NDPS cases and he has not disclosed about his involvement in the
above-said 07 cases and, therefore, there is an active concealment on the
part of the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in
aforementioned 07 more cases, however, in the petition he has
mentioned only two cases and has failed to provide any particulars
thereof. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who does not
approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not
entitled for any relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka Vs. The State
of Odisha : 2024(1) RCR(Criminal) 683.
8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munnesh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh : 2025 SCC Online SC 1319 has categorically
held that non-disclosure or suppression of criminal antecedents in bail
or anticipatory bail petitions constitutes an abuse of process of law and
such suppression may itself be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the
petition. Although, directions were issued in the context of petitions for
special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the underlying
principle enunciated therein squarely applies to the present case. The
same standard of candour and fairness is expected from a petitioner
approaching this Court under Section 482 of BNSS for anticipatory bail.
In Kaushal Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan : 2025 INSC 871, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court further emphasised that every bail application
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2026 20:46:11 :::
CRM-M-6536-2026 4
must contain a full disclosure of applicant’s criminal antecedents,
observing that such disclosure is essential for a fair and informed
exercise of judicial discretion.
9. Since the petitioner has failed to make a clean disclosure of
his antecedents and there is an active concealment on his part, the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
10. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed.
27.02.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 20:46:11 :::