Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026
1
CRM-M-16541-2026
244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16541-2026
Date of decision: April 21, 2026
DINESH KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate and
Ms. Annie, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.87 dated 03.05.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15(c), 27(a) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'SI Rajender Kumar'. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 03.05.2025 when he was leading a team of police officials deputed for patrolling duty, a Fortuner car was intercepted. As per above named police officer, 'Amit' (co-accused in this case) RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-16541-2026 was driving the abovesaid vehicle and when the abovementioned vehicle was checked, it was found that abovementioned accused was carrying 55.42 kg of poppy husk in the above said vehicle.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, registration of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation when the accused 'Amit' was interrogated he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated two co-accused namely Liladhar and Mahender as supplier of the above mentioned contraband. As per prosecution, thereafter two more disclosure statements of accused 'Amit' were recorded by the Investigating Officer, and in his third disclosure statement, the accused 'Amit' disclosed the name of the petitioner as the supplier of above mentioned contraband.
4. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six months and that investigation, in this case, has already been completed. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clear antecedents and nothing has been recovered from his possession. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is entitled to benefit for bail.
7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case, there are RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-16541-2026 allegations against the petitioner that he was a supplier of contraband to the accused 'Amit', from whose custody the contraband was recovered. As per learned counsel for the State, there was money transaction between the petitioner and co-accused 'Amit' before the recovery of contraband, and in addition to above, there were multiple calls between the two. According to learned State counsel, in view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.
8. The similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana' 2023 SCC Online SC 1235, wherein the benefit of anticipatory bail has been accorded to an accused in similar circumstance.
9. With regard to facts of the instant case the observation in the case of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co- accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.
10. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR (Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against the co-accused.
11. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-16541-2026 statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.
12. The record has been perused carefully.
13. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six months and twenty days;
ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner. There is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;
iv) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;
v) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;
vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;
vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;
viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5
CRM-M-16541-2026
14. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".
15. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CRM-M-16541-2026 while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".
16. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".
17. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
RITU SHARMA 2026.04.22 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CRM-M-16541-2026
18. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
19. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-
i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;
ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court.
20. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
April 21, 2026 JUDGE
Rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
RITU SHARMA
2026.04.22 09:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document