Gourav Kumar Alias Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.298 dated 14.11.2025 registered under Section 21, 27-A, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural.

¶13

Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on 14.11.2025, ASI Rajinderpal, along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty and on suspicion, apprehended one person, namely, Gurjinder Singh alias Ghuggi, who was found in conscious possession of 9.50 grams of heroin along with cash amount of Rs.1,000/-.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was neither

¶15

DINESH BANSAL 2026.05.01 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-3628-2026 -2-

¶17

present at the spot nor has any concern with the said offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Gurjinder Singh alias Ghuggi. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He argued that recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the said co-accused and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2025. The investigation in the present case is still going on. He further submitted that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and the status report in the matter, which are taken on record and while referring to the status report, she has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

¶19

A specific query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband, to which he answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband.

¶20

As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is

¶21

DINESH BANSAL 2026.05.01 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM-M-3628-2026 -3-

¶23

concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592’ , relevant whereof reads as under:

¶24

"155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS ACT".

¶25

More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as ‘Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau’ 2024 INSC 290’, has reiterated the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra).

¶26

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment 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:

¶27

"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-

¶28

DINESH BANSAL 2026.05.01 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M-3628-2026 -4-

¶30

accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of."

¶31

The petitioner is sought to be arrayed on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and same cannot be a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months; investigation is still going on; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial and the same will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement

¶34

DINESH BANSAL 2026.05.01 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CRM-M-3628-2026 -5-

¶36

of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” . 12. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶37

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

¶38

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶39

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 01.05.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶40

DINESH BANSAL 2026.05.01 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gourav Kumar Alias Gaurav Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourav Kumar Alias Gaurav Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana

Jai Ram and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajesh and Others Vs State of Haryana

Amrik Singh Alias Mika Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Prdeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana