Bikramjeet Singh Alias Gora Alias Bika vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
*

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026
Date of decision : 30.10.2026
Date of uploading : 30.10.2026

Bikramjeet Singh @ Gora @ Bika ………….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for
Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab

---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.197 dated 28.10.2025 under
Sections 21(c), 25, 29, 61 & 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), registered at Police Station
Jhabal, Tarn Taran.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused in a case under the NDPS Act involving 1 kg 33 grams of heroin
allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely Kulwant Singh
and Anmol Singh and the petitioner has been nominated in this case on
the disclosure statement of co-accused Kulwant Singh.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -2-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 11.5.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not
been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent
defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the
petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely,
Kulwant Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has
suffered incarceration for more than 5 months. Thus, regular bail is
prayed for.
4. Compliance report has been filed today in Court in terms of
order dated 13.10.2026. The same is taken on record.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be
dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody
certificate dated 29.10.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 11.5.2026 and investigation is
being carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on
20.6.2026, wherein 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has
been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -3-

in the FIR in question solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of
co-accused Kulwant Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is no
other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband
except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such
disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold
limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the
petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious
doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and
weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the
co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions
raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated
upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to
delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice
the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or

interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 29.10.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 5 month and 15 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the
petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple other FiRs. However, this
factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of
regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made
out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -4-

the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High
Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 &
judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh
Singh v. State of Haryana , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of
Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
6.2 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment
passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab , passed
in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198) , wherein, after relying
upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court
5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus
State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by
(NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023,
has held thus:
“ 6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made
by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very
weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the
sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with
utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover,
no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who
has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -5-

to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance
between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective
administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value
and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall
within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the
course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law.
However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot
remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been
arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the
evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role
attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A
prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the
process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. ”

6.3 Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala
versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:

089161) has held thus:
“14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following
postulates emerge:
(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS
Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section
24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving
commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the
rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of
any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family
relative etc.

(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in
view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the
bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial
is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such
bail-applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b)
of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters
contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b)
of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e.
both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea
to be successful.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -6-


IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition
stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence”:

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant
material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited
purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of
guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of
scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final
adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any,
including material/documents in support thereof, may be
looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail
plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail’:
(i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as
requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-
offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical
one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-
applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including
the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and
the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However,
the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other
offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his
propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail,
impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would
submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated
by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned
Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial
Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has
not been involved in commission of any offence after being
released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of
such condition may be considered to be sufficient for
satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and
extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself
regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act;
shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such
Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No
exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what
would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement
under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique
facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -7-

utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial
wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.”
6.4 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37
of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of
every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to
the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any
offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is
found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on
bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise,
the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his
bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits
thereof.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.55193 of 2026 -8-

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.



(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.10.30 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document