Baljinder Singh @ Mithu Singh vs State Of Punjab

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral)

Prosecution alleges that on 20.06.2026 in the area of Police Station Kotbhai falling in the territorial jurisdiction of District Sri Muktsar Sahib, 500 grams of heroin was recovered from co-accused Sonu Singh of the petitioner; that the said Sonu Singh had gone to take the said contraband at the instance of the petitioner; and that the SIM which the said Sonu Singh was using at the time of his apprehension is in the name of father of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is sought to be arrayed as an accused in the matter in question on the basis of disclosure statement of his co-accused which always is a weak type of evidence; that there is no other incriminating circumstance or evidence against the petitioner at this stage to establish his culpability in the commission of offence in question; that the petitioner has no previous case registered against him under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘NDPS Act’); and that the petitioner is ready to join investigation as well as to cooperate with the investigating agency on all material counts.

Learned State counsel, on advance notice and upon having instructions from ASI Rachpal Singh 252/SMS, has argued that the SIM belonging to father of the petitioner was found in possession of the co-accused Sonu Singh at the time of recovery in question; that as per the prosecution case, the said co-accused was using the said SIM in his mobile; that as on date, there is no explanation for such use by the said co-accused; that it is only the petitioner who can disclose as to how the said SIM reached the said co-accused especially when the petitioner says that he has no connection with him; that the said co-accused has already disclosed to the police that he was bringing the contraband in question at the instance of the petitioner; that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, since the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is commercial, also apply to the present case; and that at this stage of the proceedings, there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusions mentioned in the said Section.

After considering the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the matter in question. The present petition has been emphatically opposed by the learned State counsel and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question and also that he is not likely to commit the offences under the NDPS Act while being on bail. Furthermore, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation in respect of the SIM belonging to his father recovered from his co-accused and other aspects of the matter. So far as the argument in respect of previous non-involvement of the petitioner in an NDPS case is concerned, it is rendered inconsequential in the present case for what has been observed above.

In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed. Anything mentioned in this order shall not affect final decision of the trial in question.

Interim application/s, if any, also stand/s disposed off.