Allowed

Balkaur Singh @ Kari v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2026CRM-M/11094/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in an NDPS FIR, implicated only via co-accused's disclosure statement. He had joined investigation per interim order; State conceded no other material linked him to contraband. Interim protection made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 25.02.2026 made absolute: petitioner to join investigation as required and abide by conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Balkaur Singh @ Kari Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-11094-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

204

¶4

CRM-M-11094-2026 Date of decision: 11.05.2026

¶5

BALKAUR SINGH @ KARI

….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

¶11

Present:- M r. A.S. Grewal, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶12

M s. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, P u njab.

¶13

¶14

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

T hrough the instant petition filed under Section 482 of th e Bharatiya Na g arik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (F o r short “BNSS”), the petitione r seeks anticip a tory bail in case FIR No.168 d a ted 15.07.2025 registered unde r Sections 21 a n d 29 of the NDPS Act (Sectio n s 22 and 27 added later on) a t Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathin d a.

¶16

O n 25.02.2026, the following order was passed by the Co - ordinate Benc h of this Court: -

¶17

“Petitioner, an acc u sed in case FIR No.168 date d 15.07.2025 registered against him, under Sections 21 and 29 o f t h e NDPS Act (Sections 22 an d 27 added later on) at Polic e S tation Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, has filed the petitio n f o r grant of pre-arrest bail unde r Section 482 of BNSS.

¶18

GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶19

CRM-M-11094-2026

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the p e titioner contends that petitione r has been falsely implicated in th e present case only on the basi s o f the disclosure statement of o n e Jaskirat Singh @ Jassa, wh o himself was named on the basi s of the disclosure statement o f S atnam Singh @ Mintu. It was S a tnam Singh, who was allegedl y c a ught red handed while keepin g in his illegal possession 05.1 0 g rams 'Heroin' and the petition e r was implicated as supplier o f c o ntraband. Learned counsel further contends that sai d d isclosure statement, in the ab s ence of recovery of any othe r i n criminating material, is n ot admissible in evidence . N onetheless, petitioner is willin g to join the investigation as an d w hen called for by the I.O.

¶22

Heard. Documents on rec o rd perused.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. D AG, Punjab accepts notice o n behalf of the State. He seeks time to file the status report.

¶25

In view of the submission a dvanced by learned counsel fo r t h e petitioner, but without expre s sing any opinion on the merit s o f the case, the petitioner is her e by directed to join investigatio n w ithin seven days from today an d co-operate in the same. In th e e v ent of the arrest of the petit i oner, he shall be released o n i n terim bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to th e s a tisfaction of the Arresting Of ficer/Investigating Officer. H e s h all also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2 ) B NSS.

¶26

Adjourned to 30.03.2026. ”

¶27

L earned counsel for the petitio n er submits that in complianc e with the orde r dated 25.02.2026 passed by C o-ordinate Bench of this Court , the petitioner has joined the investigation. H e has further argued that there i s no connectio n between the petitioner and the co-accused and that th e

¶28

GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶29

CRM-M-11094-2026 3

¶30

petitioner is s ought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosur e statement of t h e co-accused.

¶31

L earned counsel for the State, on instructions of ASI Jagsi r Singh, has su b mitted that the petitioner has j o ined the investigation in term s of interim or d er/protection earlier afforded t o the petitioner and is no longe r required for fu rther custodial interrogation. S he has however submitted tha t since the FIR in question is under the NDPS A ct of 1985, the petitioner ough t not to be exte n ded the concession of anticipat o ry bail.

¶32

O n a specific query put by this Court to the learned State counse l as to whethe r , apart from the disclosure st a tement, any material has bee n found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovere d contraband, t o which learned State counsel s ubmitted that no material othe r than disclosu r e statement has been found to connect the petitioner with eithe r the offence or the recovered contraband.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused th e available reco r d.

¶34

F urther, the Hon'ble Supreme Co u rt while dealing with a plea fo r grant of anti c ipatory bail in a case under N DPS Act, 1985; in a judgmen t titled as ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023’ has held as under:

¶35

"The petitioner is alleged to h ave committed offences unde r S ections 15 and 29 of the Na r cotic Drugs and Psychotropi c S ubstances Act, 1985 (hereina ft er called the NDPS Act". Hi s a p plication for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court.

¶36

GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶37

CRM-M-11094-2026

¶38

¶39

T he allegations in the FIR are th a t 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Dod a P ost) was recovered from t h e co-accused. The petitione r c o ncededly was not present at th e spot but was named by the co - accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate th e petitioner. The prosecution u r ges that another case wit h allegations of commission of o ff ence under the NDPS Act ar e pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in thos e proceedings he was granted b ail. Having regard to thes e c i rcumstances, the petitioner i s directed to the enlarged o n anticipatory bail, subject to su c h terms and conditions as th e t r ial Court may impose. The p e tition is allowed. All pendin g a p plications are disposed of."

¶40

I n the present case also, the pe t itioner is sought to be arraye d solely on the basis of the disclosure stateme n t of the co-accused. Suffice t o say there is n o other material available to c onnect the petitioner with th e recovered co n traband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by th e co-accused w i ll be subject to comprehensive s crutiny during the course of th e trial and the s ame cannot by itself be a gro u nd to decline the concession o f anticipatory b ail to the petitioner, especi a lly when he has joined th e investigation i n terms of interim order/protection granted by the Co-ordinat e Bench of this C ourt.

¶41

I n view of the above, the petit i on is allowed and the interi m order dated 2 5.02.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i s made absolut e . The petitioner shall continue t o join investigation as and whe n required by t h e Investigating Officer and shal l also abide by the conditions a s provided und e r Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶42

GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶43

CRM-M-11094-2026 5

¶44

N eedless to say anything obse r ved herein above shall not b e

¶45

construed to b e an opinion on the merits of th e case.

¶46

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 11.05.2026 JUDGE Gurpreet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/ N o ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶47

GURPREET 2026.05.11 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Balkaur Singh @ Kari v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkaur Singh @ Kari v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leesa Vs State of Punjab

Dilbag Singh @ Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Bhullar and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana

R K Jain Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab