Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.54261 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.54261 of 2025 Date of decision : 28.11.2025 Date of uploading : 28.11.2025 Satnam Singh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 24.9.2025, the following order was passed: 'The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case registered against him vide FIR No.155 dated 27.10.2024 under Section 21, 29 of the NDPS Act (Sections 23 & 25 of the NDPs Act added later on vide Rapat No.43 dated 18.04.2025) at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that initially, Ajay Singh @ Ajju, the son of the petitioner-Satnam Singh, one Sonu and Karandeep Singh @ Karan were apprehended with the contraband in question. Ajay named one Vakil Singh @ Raju @ Vakil as an accused. Later, when the petitioner moved an application for superdari of the vehicle, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka in Para 6 of his order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) raised a suspicion about the conduct of the petitioner and it was then that he came to be nominated as an accused in the instant case vide GD No.043 dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-4).

Notice of motion.

CRM-M No.54261 of 2025 -2Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Adjourned to 28.11.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any.

Meanwhile, the State is directed to file an affidavit/reply as to the exact role of the petitioner and his co-accused alongwith the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing.' 2.

Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 24.9.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

3.

In view of the stance of the State, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he being arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 24.9.2025, in light of the dicta of the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-54032-2024 'Ashu Vs. State of Punjab' and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab' bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9190/2025.

CRM-M No.54261 of 2025 -34. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 24.9.2025, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

7.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 28.11.2025 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No