Amarjeet Singh Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :02.07.2026 Amarjeet Singh alias Sonu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

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

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 142 dated 23.07.2025, under Sections 21(c), 29, 25, 61, 85 of NDPS Act and Section 25(8) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar Rural. 2.

As per the allegations, on 23.07.2025, while the police team was on patrolling duty in search of suspicious persons, main accused, namely Sarabjit Singh Joban (whose name was disclosed subsequently during inquiry), was noticed coming on a motorcycle. On being signalled to stop, he attempted to reverse the motorcycle but lost balance and fell on the road. With the assistance of other police officials, he was apprehended on the spot and disclosed his name as Sarabjit Singh @ Joban. A polythene bag hanging with the motorcycle was checked, and 1.00 kg of heroin (along with the polythene bag) was recovered. Thereafter, a ruqa was sent for registration of the FIR.

After registration of the FIR, accused Sarabjit Singh @ Joban allegedly suffered a disclosure statement and, in pursuance thereof, on 26.07.2025, further recovery of 1.501 kg of heroin along with one pistol was effected.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name surfaced only in the second disclosure statement made by coaccused-Sarabjit Singh @ Joban. It is further submitted that, upon petitioner's arrest, no incriminating material, narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered from his possession. 4.

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the coaccused and that there is no independent corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. In the absence of any such corroborative material, it would be difficult for the prosecution to establish the petitioner's involvement in the present case. 5.

Learned counsel further submits that co-accused, namely Manmohit Singh @ Mani, who was also implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Sarabjit Singh @ Joban, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-29724-2026. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is about 30 years of age, has no previous involvement in any similar offence and is in custody for a period of last 11 months and 2 days. Thus, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

7.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that a substantial recovery of 2.501 kg of heroin was effected from co-accused Sarabjit Singh @ Joban, which, as per the investigation, was supplied by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner's involvement has surfaced during the course of investigation. In view of the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged supply of narcotic substance, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition. 8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

9.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025, and that his involvement, at this stage, appears to be primarily based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the evidentiary value whereof is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. Moreover, to fortify the stand taken by the respondent-State, no other incriminating material or independent evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing of the present petition. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his 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.

10.

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

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No