The court reaffirmed that mere implication on the basis of a disclosure statement, absent recovery or prior criminal history, is insufficient for denying anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act if the accused cooperates with the investigation. The decision follows Supreme Court and High Court precedents and serves as binding authority for similar bail matters relating to NDPS offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M-10045-2025 of LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS LOVE Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010275902025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding for anticipatory bail matters under NDPS, where implication is only by disclosure statement and there is no recovery or criminal antecedent |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 in a case under the NDPS Act, where the accused is named only in a co-accused’s disclosure statement, with no recovery or prior criminal antecedents against him. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, where an accused is implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused, without recovery of contraband from him and no prior criminal record, anticipatory bail may be granted if the accused joins and cooperates in the investigation. The petitioner had joined investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation. The court relied on similar bail decisions of the High Court and guidelines of the Supreme Court. Protection is subject to Section 482(2) BNSS and is not blanket or indefinite; applicable only for the named FIR. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Absence of recovery or criminal antecedents, participation in investigation, and reliance only on disclosure statement do not justify pretrial incarceration; discretion to grant anticipatory bail upheld per precedent. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR alleged recovery of 300 grams heroin from co-accused; no recovery from petitioner; petitioner not present at the spot; no prior criminal record; named through disclosure statement alone; petitioner joined investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation. |
| Citations | None specified beyond cause titles and CRM/SLP numbers referenced. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana; persuasive value for comparable matters in other jurisdictions, especially under NDPS Act. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court on anticipatory bail applications under NDPS Act involving disclosure statements. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Court clarified that mere disclosure statement of co-accused, absent recovery or prior criminal antecedents, is not sufficient for denying anticipatory bail under NDPS Act.
- Grant of anticipatory bail is supported when the accused participates in and cooperates with the investigation, and custodial interrogation is not required.
- Protection granted is not a ‘blanket’ order—it is confined to the specific FIR and is subject to compliance with conditions.
- State/complainant may seek cancellation if conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS are breached.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether the petitioner, named only through a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and with no prior criminal record or recovery from him, should be denied anticipatory bail.
- The court noted the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required.
- Relied on the precedents from the High Court (Ashu v. State of Punjab) and the Supreme Court (Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab) that support anticipatory bail in such factual matrices.
- Concluded that liberty should not be curtailed merely on the basis of a disclosure statement.
- Imposed standard statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.
- Clarified the protection is case/FIR-specific and not a general bar against future action.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No recovery was made from petitioner; not apprehended at the scene.
- Implicated only via disclosure statement of co-accused.
- No previous criminal antecedents or prior NDPS involvement.
- Petitioner has joined the investigation as directed.
Respondent (State):
- Confirmed petitioner joined investigation.
- Stated petitioner no longer required for custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
FIR No.317 dated 10.12.2023 was registered under Sections 21(c), 25, 27-A, 61, 85 (Section 29) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar, relating to recovery of 300 grams of heroin from a co-accused. The petitioner was not present or apprehended at the spot, was named only via a co-accused’s disclosure, and had no prior criminal record. Anticipatory bail was sought under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, and petitioner joined investigation as directed by the court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 BNSS, 2023: Invoked for applying for anticipatory bail; conditions under sub-section (2) applied.
- NDPS Act Sections 21(c), 25, 27-A, 61, 85 (Section 29): Cited as offences in FIR—no interpretative dispute or expansion explained in this order.
- Clarified statutory conditions (Section 482(2) of BNSS) for grant of anticipatory bail; not a blanket or indefinite protection.
Procedural Innovations
- The order specifically emphasized that anticipatory bail protection is not blanket and should be confined to the specific FIR, reinforcing the applicability and limitations of such orders under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.
- Liberty reserved for State/complainant to move for cancellation of bail upon breach of any stipulated conditions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Follows established bail law regarding implication by disclosure statement alone under NDPS Act.
Citations
- CRM-M-54032-2024 ‘Ashu Vs. State of Punjab’ (High Court of Punjab & Haryana)
- Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No.9190/2025 (Supreme Court of India)
- No SCC/AIR/MANU citations indicated in the judgment.