CRM-M/3768/2026 of MAJOR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

REEMA SAINI

kit bag. On search 1 kilogram heroin (Diacetylmorphine) was recovered in wax-sealed envelope, from his conscious possession. Disclosure statement of Vinay Kumar @ Mithu was recorded. He disclosed that Major Singh son of Jaswinder Singh (petitioner) and Kulwinder Singh @ Raja, used to supply him heroin, which he would sell further and remit the proceeds to them. On the disclosure, Major Singh and Kulwinder Singh were nominated as accused. Major Singh was apprehended and arrested on 19.07.2025. On the basis of his disclosure statement, two pistols .32 bore along with magazine and two live cartridges .32 bore were recovered from his possession. Offences under Section 25(1B), 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 were added. Kulwinder Singh alias Raja was later arrested and on his disclosure statement Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi was arrested on 06.08.2025. On 08.08.2025, at the instance of Kulwinder Singh, 300 grams of heroin along with .32 bore pistol and two live cartridges and one .315 bore pistol with two live cartridges were recovered from the area of Burlton Park near the wall of Ashram, from under a tree. On the same date, at the instance of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, 200 grams of heroine along with two pistols of .32 bore with one live cartridge were recovered from Balton Park near the wall of Herbal Park, from under a tree. Kulwinder Singh @ Raja and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi were arrested. On the basis of disclosure statement of Kulwinder Singh @ Raja, accused Gagandeep Singh @ Baba was nominated as an accused and .32 bore pistol along with two live cartridges was recovered at his instance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which was not REEMA SAINI

admissible in evidence. No recovery was effected from possession of the petitioner except, two .32 bore pistols and cartridges. Petitioner, who was in custody w.e.f. 19.07.2025, thus, deserved to be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail while conceding that petitioner was implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Vinay Kumar alias Mithu. It was urged that petitioner was the supplier of narcotics to co-accused. Recovery of .32 bore pistol along with 2 live cartridges was effected at his instance, which prima- facie disclosed his nexus with co-accused and connected narcotics and arm network .

5. In ‘Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the worth of a confessional/disclosure statement and ruled as below: ‘155. We answer the reference by stating:

(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are ‘police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.’

6. The same principle of law was reiterated in Smt.Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290.

7. A Three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmand Arimutta and another 2022(12) REEMA SAINI

SCC 633, while considering an appeal filed by Narcotic Control Bureau against orders of High Court releasing the respondents on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27-A,27B, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, observed as under: ‘9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner- NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16 thSeptember, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the REEMA SAINI

Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.’

8. After dismissal of petitioner's first bail application on 09.10.2025, the subsequent period of custody can be regarded as substantial change in circumstance. Concededly, petitioner Major Singh was not present at the spot. Recovery of heroin was from co-accused Vinay. No recovery of narcotics was effected from his possession. He has been implicated on disclosure statement of Vinay Kumar alias Mithu, co-accused. Investigation of the case is complete. Antecedents of petitioner are clean. Although the veracity, evidentiary value and admissibility of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused, on the basis of which petitioner has been roped in would be considered by the trial Court at final stage of the case, there is no justifiable ground to reject his bail application.

9. Considering the material collected by the police against the petitioner, the period of incarceration and all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE 27.08.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI