Allowed

Jasdev Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2026CRM-M/15917/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused in an NDPS case after he joined the investigation and was no longer needed for custodial interrogation, relying on previous High Court and Supreme Court dicta. The order was made absolute subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order made absolute subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, restricted to the specific FIR.

Jasdev Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M No.15917 of 2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

208/2

¶4

¶5

CRM-M No.15917 of 2026 Date of decision : 4.5.2026 Date of uploading : 5.5.2026

¶6

Jasdev Singh ………….Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab …….Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present: Ms. Vanshika Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab

¶12

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On 24.3.2026, the following order was passed: ‘Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.22 dated 29.01.2026, registered against him for the commission of offences punishable u/s 18, 27, 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 482 BNS. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by coaccused, who were allegedly caught red handed at the site keeping in their illegal possession 03 kgs 80 grams of Opium (‘Commercial Quantity’). Learned counsel further submits that said disclosure statement, in the absence of recovery of any other incriminating material, is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer. Heard. Documents perused. Notice of motion. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of

¶14

ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M No.15917 of 2026 -2-

¶16

respondent-State and seeks time to file detailed status report. Adjourned to 04.05.2026.

¶17

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is hereby directed to join investigation within fifteen days from today and co-operate in the same. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.’

¶18

Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to

¶19

the order dated 24.3.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

¶20

In view of the stance of the State, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 24.3.2026, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ and recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025 .

¶21

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 24.3.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

¶22

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶23

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for

¶24

cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any

¶25

ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M No.15917 of 2026 -3-

¶27

condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶28

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶29

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶30

4.5.2026

¶31

Ashwanii

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶33

ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.05.05 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jasdev Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasdev Singh 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

Harish Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chander Prakash Vs State of Haryana

Kunal Sahota Alias Kunal Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baldev Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Aryan Alias Kannu Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Alias Gora Vs State of Punjab