Sachin Singh vs State Of Punjab

… Petitioner

Versus

... Respondent

-.-CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. -.-VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

Second petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR, details of which are as under:-

The petitioner further seeks issuance of an appropriate direction to the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid FIR, on the ground that he was neither apprehended at the spot nor was any recovery effected from his possession or at his instance; rather, his implication is founded solely upon the disclosure statement allegedly made by a co-accused. It is further prayed that, during the pendency of the present petition, the arrest of the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR be stayed.

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CRM-M-5638-2026 seeking the same relief of pre-arrest bail, which petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2026.

The FIR emanates from a BSF operation dated 20.11.2025, during which two persons were apprehended near BOP Babapir, while a third allegedly escaped. A bottle containing a pistol without slide, a magazine and three live cartridges was recovered from the field. During investigation, the petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of the disclosure statements of the apprehended persons, alleging that the recovered weapon and ammunition had been ordered by him through a drone by setting the delivery location through his mobile phone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused. It was submitted that neither the alleged weapon nor any incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner or at his instance, and no independent evidence connects him with the alleged offence. The disclosure statements, having been recorded in police custody and not resulting in any recovery or discovery of fact, are prima facie hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

It was further submitted that nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner; hence, his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor likely to advance the investigation. There is no material suggesting that he would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or evade investigation if granted protection. The petitioner is willing to join and cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. It was accordingly prayed that petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statements of the apprehended co-accused, alleging his involvement in procuring the recovered pistol and ammunition through a drone. It was contended that the absence of recovery from the petitioner, by itself, does not dilute the material collected against him, particularly when investigation regarding the source, procurement and delivery of the weapon is still underway. It was further submitted that the admissibility and evidentiary value of the disclosure statements are matters to be examined at the appropriate stage and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to verify his alleged role and complete the chain of investigation. Learned State counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, having perused the paper book and the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The material collected during investigation discloses recovery of the pistol, magazine and live cartridges, which, as per the prosecution case, were procured through a drone from across the international border after the delivery location was allegedly conveyed through the mobile phone of the petitioner. The nature of the allegations, coupled with the alleged cross-border procurement and delivery of the weapon, renders the petitioner’s custodial interrogation relevant for a fair and effective investigation into the source, procurement, transmission and intended utilisation of the recovered arms and ammunition.

It is also significant that the petitioner’s earlier petition seeking the same relief of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2026. Despite such dismissal, the petitioner has neither surrendered nor made himself available to the Investigating Agency and has continued to evade arrest. His conduct, viewed in the backdrop of the material collected during investigation, does not warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in his favour.

The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the evidentiary value of the disclosure statements and the absence of recovery from his possession involve matters which are required to be tested on the basis of evidence led during trial. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record a conclusive finding on the admissibility or ultimate probative value of the material collected during investigation.

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery of arms and ammunition allegedly procured through a cross-border drone operation, the petitioner’s alleged role in facilitating such procurement, his continued non-availability to the Investigating Agency despite dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail application, and the necessity of an effective investigation, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the ultimate evidentiary value of the material collected by the prosecution, the present petition is dismissed.

In light of the final disposition of the captioned matter, all pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications are hereby deemed disposed of. The adjudication of the primary dispute has spent the force of these ancillary proceedings, rendering them infructuous ex facie. Consequently, no independent or supplemental orders are warranted or required in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

23.09.2026 JUDGE