Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.170 dated 05.07.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(C)/61/85 of the NDPS Act and Section 27 of The Arms Act and Section 29/61/85 of NDPS Act (added later on) vide DDR No.51 dated 05.07.2026 at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 05.07.2026, the police party was on patrol duty in search of bad elements when a car was seen parked on the roadside. The police party approached the said vehicle and found three persons sitting therein. Upon being questioned regarding their presence at the spot, they failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation. The person sitting on the driving seat disclosed his name as Joginder Singh, Senior Constable, Punjab Police, the person sitting on the conductor seat disclosed his name as Arshdeep Singh whereas the person sitting on the rear seat disclosed his name as Dilsher Singh. Inspector Harpreet Singh informed them of the suspicion and apprised them of their legal right to have their search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate whereinafter DSP Rashpal Singh was called to the spot. In the search conducted, 280 grams of Heroin, one revolver, five live cartridges and five mobile phones were allegedly from the possession of the persons present in the vehicle. On the basis of the recovery, the FIR in question, came to be registered.

On the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by accused Joginder Singh, the name of the present petitioner came to be nominated in the case in hand and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added vide DDR No.51 dated 05.07.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Punjab Police and has unblemished service record. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been nominated subsequently only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused while in custody, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further contended that no recovery, either of any narcotic substance or other incriminating material, has been effected from the petitioner. It has been further contended that the ingredients of Section 29 of the NDPS Act cannot be presumed merely because the name of the petitioner has subsequently surfaced during investigation. Furthermore, there is no independent corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence and his name does not find mention in the FIR. The only basis for implicating the petitioner is the unsubstantiated disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and, thus, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances and has an active role in the supply of the contraband in question. It has been further contended that the investigation is at an initial stage and extent of involvement of the petitioner is required to be ascertained particularly when the contraband was allegedly recovered from a serving police official. Considering the gravity of the offence, the larger public interest involved in curbing the menace of drug trafficking and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

As per the material placed on record, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that on the alleged day of occurrence, acting on credible secret information, co-accused Joginder Singh, Senior Constable, Punjab Police, Arshdeep Singh and Dilsher Singh were apprehended by the police and 280 grams of Heroin, one revolver, five live cartridges and five mobiles phones had been recovered from their possession. The name of the petitioner was though not mentioned in the FIR but his name has surfaced during investigation through the disclosure statement of co-accused namely Joginder Singh and accordingly Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. The mere fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR does not, by itself, be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. At this stage, the alleged involvement of the petitioner is based on the disclosure statements of co-accused coupled with the fact that the investigating agency has also gathered corroborative evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution. In the considered opinion of this Court, the veracity of such disclosure and the extent of the involvement of the petitioner can only be ascertained through the custodial interrogation which is necessary to trace the source, storage and network of drug supply. At this stage, no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner is not connected with the offence in question. The investigation is still underway and the possibility of recovery of further contraband or incriminating material cannot be ruled out.

Another pertinent factor which weighs heavily against the petitioner is that he is a police official i.e. Assistant Sub-Inspector and have been holding charge of a Police Post. The prosecution has alleged that one of the accused from whom the contraband and weapon were recovered is himself a Senior Constable of the Punjab Police. In these circumstances, at this stage, the possibility of the petitioner having used or misused his official position in connection with the alleged offence cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, the investigation so far indicates the involvement of the petitioner in a well-organized network engaged in the illegal distribution of psychotropic substances. The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the material collected on record reflects that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unravel the larger conspiracy and to identify other potential co-conspirators. The allegations in the FIR, when viewed in conjunction with the available material on record, raise serious concerns about the possible role of the petitioner in a larger narcotics network which cannot be brushed aside at this stage of the investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses who may be vulnerable to coercion does not appear to be without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice and the overarching public interest in deterring the menace of narcotic drug trafficking, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of bail at this juncture. Moreover, in view of the serious allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for unearthing the broader conspiracy and identifying other potential accomplices that may be within the exclusive knowledge or possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material witnesses.

It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the far reaching impact of such alleged iniquities on society. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:

At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.