Lovepreet Singh Alias Love Vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.04, dated 07.01.2025, registered under Sections 21(C), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act (offence under Section 238 of the BNS was added lateron), at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar.

¶14

As per the allegations, on 07.01.2025, accused Jugraj Singh @ Shiva was apprehended on the basis of suspicion by a police party and recovery of 30 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession. The recovered contraband was taken into possession by the police. Accused Jugraj Singh @ Shiva was formally arrested. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that the recovered contraband was being sold at his house by his mother Simarjit Kaur, brother Navraj Singh @ Lalli and

¶15

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-5449-2026 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

neighbour Dilpreet Singh. The above named persons were nominated as accused and were arrested. They too suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosure statements, Sandeep Singh and Manjit Singh @ Bhola were nominated as co-accused. Accused Sandeep Singh, who was lodged in custody in some other case, was joined into investigation of this case and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that while being in custody, he was keeping a mobile phone in his barrack and was making contacts through whatsApp with coaccused Manjit Singh @ Bhola for getting supply of heroin received from the border area and further delivering it to the present petitioner and coaccused Gurdev Singh @ Rohit, Karanjit Singh @ Kancha, Amritpal Singh @ Amrit and Jugraj Singh @ Shiva. The petitioner was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 12.01.2025. Investigation now stands completed.

¶19

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since 12.01.2025. No recovery has been effected from him. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the

¶21

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-5449-2026 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

benefit of bail.

¶25

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

The petitioner is alleged to be involved in the business of sale/purchase of contraband. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since 12.01.2025. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whom the alleged recovery has been effected. In Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner.

¶27

Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by this Court in Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, 2005:PHHC:004198 , wherein it was observed that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused falls within the domain of the trial Court and is to be adjudicated during the course of trial in accordance with established principles of law.

¶28

The petitioner is in custody since long. There is nothing on

¶29

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-5449-2026 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

record, at this stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and further subject to the conditions that he shall surrender his passport, if any, during the pendency of the trial. Upon his release, he shall provide his Aadhar Card details and details of his mobile phone number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all the times. He shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

¶33

Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

¶34

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

¶35