Punjab-Haryana High Court
Doctor Dalbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2026
CRM-M-9388
9388-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231
CRM
CRM-M-9388-2026
Date of decision: 05.03.2026
DOCTOR DALBIR SINGH
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate
M
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab
Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS"), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21-B/27 B/27-A/29/61/85 A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran Taran.
2. On 18.02.2026, the following order was passed by the co--
ordinate bench of this Court:
Court -
"1.
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.180, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21-B/27-A/29/61/85 21 A/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-9388 9388-2026 2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement of co co--
accused, namely, Harpreet Singh. It has be been en further contended that except the disclosure statement, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commissioning of the offence. He further asserts that co co--
accused, namely, Harpreet Singh @ Harry, in w whose hose possession 32 bore pistol, 49 grams of heroin and Rs.5,000/ Rs.5,000/- drug money were recovered and Gurjant Singh @ Janta, have already been granted the concession of bail by trial Court or by this Court vide Annexures P-2 P and P-3, 3, respectively. Learned counse counsell further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned.
3. Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State State and opposes the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in three more cases.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the recovery in qu question estion has already been effected from co-accused, co accused, nothing remains to be recovered from the present petitioner, he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co co-accused, co--
accused have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court or by the trial Court vide Annexures P P-2 and P-3.
6. 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 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 has held as under:
GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this document.
CRM-M-9388 9388-2026 3
7. "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 co-accused.
accused. The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused.
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 proceedings 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."
As regards the submission of learn learned ed State counsel that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases, 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 fact factss 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 cases). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
hereinbelow:
"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 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."
8. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, as well as the undertaking given before this Court by learned GURPREET counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing counsel 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-9388 9388-2026 4 to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer concerned, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner titioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigatin Arresting/Investigating g Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
10. List on 05.03.2026."
."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Hee has further argued that there is no connection between the petitioner and the co-accused and that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
co
4. Learned counsel for the State, (on instructions from ASI Mahal Singh), has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection earlier afforded to the petitioner and iss no longer required for further custodial interrogation. H He has however submitted that since the FIR in question is under the NDPS Act of 1985, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. On a specific query put by this this Court to the 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 learned State counsel submitted that no material oth other er GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-9388 9388-2026 5 than disclosure statement has been found to connect the petitioner with either the offence or the recovered contraband.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.
7. Further, the he Hon'ble Supreme Court whi while le 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:
"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 allegati allegations ons in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co co-accused.
accused.
The petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the co-accused.
accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution 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."
8. In the present case also, the the petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the he basis of the disclosure statement of the co co-accused.
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 accused will be subject to comprehensive comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-9388 9388-2026 6 trial and the same cannot by itself be a ground to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, petitioner especially when she he has joined the investigation in terms of interim order/protection protection granted by this Court.
9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the co-ordinate ordinate bench of this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
10. Needless to say anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 05.03.2026 JUDGE Gurpreet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No GURPREET 2026.03.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.