Gurbaksh Singh @ Lalla vs State of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 151 dated 07.08.2025 registered under Sections 21(B), 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 21(c) of NDPS Act was added later on) at Police Station Chhehratta District Amritsar. His previous petition bearing CRM-M- No.21273-2026 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2026.

As per the allegations, on 07.08.2025, the accused Lucky and Manik were apprehended by a police party and recovery of 150 grams of heroin and cash amounting to Rs. 2,600/- was effected from them, which was taken into possession. They were formally arrested. During interrogation, accused Lucky suffered a disclosure statement, on the basis of which, Jarnail Singh and Raja Singh were nominated as accused. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he further got recovered 3kgs and 4 grams of heroin. On 11.08.2025, accused Lucky suffered another disclosure statement, on the basis of which Nirmal Singh @ Surya was nominated as co-accused and was arrested on the same day. Another disclosure statement was suffered by accused Lucky on 13.08.2025, to the effect that the present petitioner, who was dealing in the trade of contraband, had come into contact with him in the year 2024. He disclosed that the petitioner, acting on the instructions of co-accused Joban, who was residing abroad, used to procure consignments of heroin from across the Pakistan border, including through drones and supply the same as directed by the petitioner. He had been introduced to accused Karandeep Yadav @ Karan Bhaiya, who was engaged in procuring large consignments of heroin from Pakistan through drones through the present petitioner and had been acting as per the instructions of the petitioner. The petitioner had also instructed him to work with the aforesaid Karandeep Yadav.

As per the further allegations, the petitioner was nominated as an accused. At that time, he was in custody in connection with another case and was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar. His presence was procured through production warrants and he was formally arrested in the present case on 14.08.2025. During interrogation, he too suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the business of sale/supply of contraband with co-accused Karandeep Yadav. Karandeep Yadav was also subsequently arrested and disclosed that he had entered into the drug trade at the instance of the present petitioner. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has been in custody for a considerable period. Each day spent by him in custody furnishes a fresh ground for seeking the concession of bail. His prolonged incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. No recovery has been effected at his instance. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the instant petition, being a successive petition, is not maintainable. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is presently involved in three cases. He has also been convicted in one case and is involved in seven other cases, four of which are of a similar nature. He had also been convicted in a case registered under Section 52-A of the Prisons Act. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier petition are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have engaged in the business of sale of contraband and supply of the same. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. 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 has been 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 14.08.2025. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody for a period of about one year and one month. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. Merely on account of petitioner’s involvement in other cases, cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and further subject to the conditions that upon his release, he shall provide his Aadhar Card details and details of his mobile phone number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all the times. He shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

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.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.