Balraj Singh @ Bobby vs State Of Punjab

-1-
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-2-
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-3-
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Versus Samarth Kumar (supra ), held as under:-
“ 4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from
the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh
Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the
majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana
that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the
respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular
bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail.
Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been
apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate
General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a
habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is
guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was
granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that
therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But,we do not agree.
7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-4-
to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in
pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.
Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present
appeals have become infructuous.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
(supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application
or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is
not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High
Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the
respondents.
10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the Appellant-State is
entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.
[emphasis supplied]
In Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 , it was held
as under:-
“ 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-
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
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-5-
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State by (NCB)
Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (supra) , held as under:-
“ 9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated
statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-
NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in
each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-
1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima
facie, that no substantial material was available with the
prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with
the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug
trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except
for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other
respondents were found to be in possession of commercial
quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the
NDPS Act.
10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , that a confessional statement
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain
inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the
teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-6-
NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the
respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders
releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or
the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the
respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial.
For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th
January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020
passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No.
1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-
74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned
orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions
filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to
the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.
This Court in the case of Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-39657-2020 , held as under:-
“ It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been
named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the
petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co-
accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The
petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the
disclosure statement made by the co-accused Rakesh Sharma and
Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners were
arrayed as accused in pursuance of the disclosure statements, no
recovery had been made from the petitioners.
The petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020
(Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander) and 23.04.2021
(Davinder Singh) and challan in the present case has already been
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-7-
presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom only one has
been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account
of Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioners are not involved in any
other case. With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no
dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the co-
accused, Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the
petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in
the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the transcript
of the said conversations are not a part of the record under Section
173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:-
Still further, no conversation detail between
accused Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has
been produced by the prosecution. Mere call details is not
sufficient to prove that Sandeep accused was also involved
in the business of narcotic drugs or he had any connected
with Ramesh Kumar Patil.
In view of the above, no case is made out for
grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep
accused.”
In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai
Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:-
“ Having heard learned advocates for the appearing
parties, it emerges on record that the applicant is not found
in possession of any contraband article. Over and above
that, the call data records may reveal that in an around the
time of incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who
were found in possession of contraband. Since there is no
recording of conversation in between the accused, mere
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-8-
contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession
cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence
of substantive material found against the accused.”
A perusal of the above judgment would show that
without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the
co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be
corroborative material in absence of substantive material found
against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material
against the petitioners.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, as well as
law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, the present
petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and
subject to their not being required in any other case.
(emphasis supplied)
7. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that bail
can be granted to an accused where he has been named in a disclosure
statement of his co-accused but there is no recovery from him on his arrest
and the CDRs do not disclose the actual conversation that transpired between
the accused from whom the recovery was effected and the one named in the
disclosure statement.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the disclosure
statement of his co-accused. He is in custody since
prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the
present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Hence, the further
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh

-9-
incarceration of the petitioner is not required as a prima facie satisfaction
under Section 37 NDPS can be recorded in the aforementioned factual
scenario.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Balraj Singh @ Bobby son of Massa
Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
10. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases mentioned in this order.
11. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial
Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the
absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
Kusum
KUSUM
2026.11.05 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh