Raj Singh Alias Angrej v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRM-M-49870-2025 Decided on : 19.03.2026 Raj Singh @ Angrej . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) 2) CRM-M-10548-2026 Raman . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Janya Sirohi, Advocate for Mr. Karnadeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-49870-2025).

Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate for Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-10548-2026).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-49870-2025 and CRM-M10548-2026, as all the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM-M-49870-2025. 2.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Raj Singh @ Angrej (petitioner in CRM-M-498702025) 183 29.11.2024 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 STF SAS Nagar (Mohali) SAS Nagar (Mohali) [S. 29 of NDPS Act, added later on, vide Report No.12, dated 01.12.2024]

- 2 - Raman (petitioner in CRM-M-105482026) 183 29.11.2024 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, Special Tas Force District STF Wing (Mohali) SAS Nagar (Mohali) later on Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 52-A of Prisoners Act added.

3.

On the basis of secret information in regard to indulging of the accused persons, namely, (i) Arjan, and (ii) Gaurav in the business of selling of heroin, FIR in the present case was registered against both the above named accused.

During investigation, on conducting raid upon the named accused, firstly polythene held in right hand of accused Arjan, 2 kg. of heroin was recovered and at that time, both the accused were found together on the spot riding on motorcycle.

After being arrested, accused Arjan disclosed the name of two more accused persons, i.e., (i) Kuldeep Singh, and (ii) Raman@ Ramni (petitioner herein in CRM-M-10548-2026). Both of them were also arrested, however, nothing was recovered from their possession. Co-accused - Kuldeep Singh further got recorded his disclosure statement, wherein, he disclossed that while being inside jail in some other case(s), he developed friendly relations with Raj Singh @ Angrej (petitioner in CRM-M-498702025) and at the instance of petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej, co-accused - Kuldeep Singh arranged heroin through other associates of the petitioner. 4.

In the status report, already filed in the registry in the case of petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej, it has been made clear that petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej was made accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused - Kuldeep Singh, who already has been released on bail. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to order dated 08.10.2025, passed in CRM-M-22382-2025, titled as, "Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab" (attached as 'Annexure P-3'). He further submits that apart the disclosure statement of coaccused - Kuldeep Singh, prosecution agency has not highlighted any other substantiating evidence in the status report for opposing the bail of the petitioner(s).

Similarly, in the status report, it has been detailed that it was coaccused - Kuldeep Singh, who in his disclosure statement, disclosed that while confining in the Central Jail, Ferozepur, he had developed friendship with Raj Singh @ Angrej and when he was released from the jail, he was in

- 3 - touch with petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej, and it was on his asking that he used to arrange heroin and sale of it to further customers. In the said disclosure statement, it was also disclosed that 2 kg. of heroin, which was recovered in the present case from accused - Arjan and Gaurav, was also in fact ordered by petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej, and on his instructions/asking, it was collected by accused/petitioner - Raman @ Ramni, and thereafter, same was handed-over to main accused - Arjan and Gaurav, at Patrol Pump near Golu Ka Mod.

6.

On being asked by this Court, it was informed that as per custody certificates, petitioner - Raj Singh @ Angrej is inside the jail for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 11 days, and petitioner - Raman @ Ramni, is inside the jail for a period of 03 months and 22 days. 7.

Admittedly, no contraband falling under the NDPS Act or any drug money has been recovered from either of the petitioners. Their implication in the present case is solely based upon the disclosure statement of co-accused. It would be for the prosecution to establish the said allegations beyond reasonable doubt during the course of trial. Besides, custody certificates dated 18.03.2026 have been filed in Court today by learned State counsel, which are taken on record. Copies thereof have been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners. The said custody certificates substantiate the period of incarceration already undergone by both the petitioners.

8.

In the totality of circumstances as well as the facts recorded & noted here-above, and also without commenting upon merits of the case, and taking into consideration overall facts & circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate not to continue their further detention in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9.

Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

10.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,

- 4 - trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

11.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

12.

Petitions stand disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 19, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No