AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bikram Singh @ Vicky ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate, For the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, For the respondent-State.
*** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL):-
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 20 | 27.03.2025 | Talwara, District Hoshiarpur | 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (29 of NDPS Act added later on) |
As per the allegations, on 27.03.2025, the accused Ritik was apprehended on the basis of suspicion when on seeing the police officials, he threw a polythene carried in his hand on the kacha path of the road and tried to flee. On opening the same, the polythene was found to be containing 1006 loose intoxicant tablets which were taken into custody by the police. The accused Ritik was arrested. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested on 19.07.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery had been effected from him. Rather at the time of registration of FIR of this case, he was in custody in another case bearing FIR No.19 registered at the same police station. His further incarceration will not serve any fruitful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.
This Court has considered the rival submissions.
The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by the co-accused Ritik. As per his disclosure statement, he used to purchase the contraband from the petitioner. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Court in Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 2005:PHHC:004198, wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and is to be adjudicated during the course of trial in accordance
with established principles of law.
The petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2025. Challan has been presented. The trial will take time. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. As per the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-
the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.
he shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.
he shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed.
he shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court.
the petitioner shall give details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.
In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.09.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No