Sandeep Chohan vs State of Punjab

First Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.159 dated 14.07.2026, registered under Sections 21-B, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1).

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence, ASI Baldev Singh, along with other police officials, was conducting patrol duty in a private vehicle in the area of 40 Footi Gali, Naraingarh, while carrying a laptop and printer for official purposes. Upon reaching near the end of the street, a clean-shaven person emerged from a side lane and, on noticing the police party, suddenly turned back and attempted to flee while trying to throw a heavy black plastic packet from the right pocket of his trousers. He was apprehended by the police party and disclosed his identity as Akasdeep Singh @ Kasi @ Kishan. An effort was made to associate an independent witness, but no passerby agreed to join the proceedings. Upon search of the petitioner, the aforesaid black plastic packet was allegedly recovered, which, on examination with a drug detection kit, tested positive for heroin. The recovered substance, when weighed along with the plastic packet, was found to be 105 grams. The contraband was duly sealed with the seal bearing impression "BS", a separate sample seal was prepared and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide recovery memo. The rukka was thereafter sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. Videography of the proceedings at the spot was also conducted through the eSakshya App. Accordingly, the present FIR came to be registered under Section 21-B of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged recovery of 105 grams of heroin was effected from the co-accused and falls within the category of intermediate quantity. The petitioner has subsequently been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by the co-accused while in police custody. It is further submitted that, apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no independent or corroborative material connecting the petitioner with the alleged contraband or the commission of the offence. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner, nor is there any ocular evidence implicating him in the alleged occurrence. It is, therefore, contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and that he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and, while relying upon the allegations contained in the FIR, vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is contended that the petitioner has been specifically implicated during the course of investigation and that the allegations relate to an offence under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the manner in which the contraband is alleged to have been procured and possessed, and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation, the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The prosecution case is not founded merely upon a bald allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has been specifically nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Akashdeep Singh, from whose conscious possession 105 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered. The disclosure attributed to the co-accused specifically implicates the petitioner as the alleged supplier of the recovered contraband and being involved in cross-border narco smuggling.

The significance of the aforesaid circumstance cannot be assessed in isolation. The alleged recovery of 105 grams of heroin constitutes a substantive investigative circumstance, while the disclosure of the co-accused furnishes the investigating agency with a specific lead regarding the source and supply chain of the contraband. At this stage, the Court is not required to conclusively determine the evidentiary admissibility or ultimate probative value of the disclosure statement; those questions are matters for consideration at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The present consideration is confined to whether the petitioner deserves protection from arrest so as to render the investigation incapable of effectively pursuing the lead emerging from the material collected thus far.

The allegation that the petitioner acted as a supplier assumes considerable significance in the context of an offence involving narcotic trafficking from cross-border. Such type of smuggling incidents from cross-border are creating havoc with youth of Punjab and same is required to be curbed with heavy hand. The investigation is required to ascertain the source from which the contraband was procured, the manner in which it was supplied to the co-accused, the financial and communication trail, and whether any other persons are involved in the alleged chain of supply. Such aspects cannot be lightly brushed aside at the threshold, particularly when the prosecution asserts a specific nexus between the petitioner and the contraband recovered from the co-accused.

At the stage of considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary worth of the prosecution material or return a definitive finding regarding the petitioner's guilt or innocence. What weighs against the petitioner, at this juncture, is the specific allegation of his being the supplier of the contraband recovered from the co-accused, coupled with the necessity of tracing the alleged source and supply network. The investigation, therefore, deserves to proceed unhindered and without prematurely insulating the petitioner from custodial interrogation.

In view of the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the recovery of 105 grams of heroin from the co-accused, the disclosure implicating the petitioner as the alleged supplier, and the necessity of unravelling the source and chain of supply, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present prayer for pre-arrest bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner.

In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.