Rajveer Singh vs State Of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been 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. 14 dated 23.01.2025 registered under Sections 15(c), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot.

As per the allegations, on 23.01.2025, accused Nirvair Singh was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 80 kilograms 820 grams of poppy husk was effected from his possession, which was taken into possession by the police. He was formally arrested. During interrogation, accused Nirvair Singh suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased four bags of poppy husk from accused Nirmal Singh @ Neema at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per kilogram, by making payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash, while the remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. He further disclosed that the amount of Rs.70,000/- had been handed over to him by some unknown person. He also disclosed the details of the mobile phones used by him. Offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. The mobile phones recovered from accused Nirvair Singh were sent for forensic examination. Accused Nirmal Singh @ Neema applied for grant of anticipatory bail and was allowed to join the investigation. He suffered a disclosure statement on 05.05.2025 to the effect that the poppy husk recovered in the present case had been transported by the petitioner in his Honda City car bearing registration No. DL4CNC-4522 on 23.01.2025, after removing the front passenger seat as well as the rear seat to facilitate transportation of the contraband. He further disclosed that after unloading the poppy husk from the vehicle, he had driven away and concealed the vehicle at some undisclosed place. On the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused. The petitioner was already in custody in another case and was joined in the investigation of the present case on 10.07.2025. During interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that the recovered poppy husk had been brought by him in his car at the asking of accused Nirmal Singh and had been dropped at the house of Nirmal Singh, whereafter he fled from the spot on seeing the police officials. 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 the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible evidence against him. It is further argued that no prosecution witness has been examined so far and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is every likelihood of his indulging in similar activities in case he is released on bail. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

The petitioner is alleged to have transported the contraband in his Honda City car bearing registration No. DL4CNC-4522 at the asking of co-accused Nirmal Singh and to have dropped the same at his house. He was nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by 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 10.07.2025. 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. 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.