Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236 CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
Pradeep Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
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.116 dated 12.02.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 15-C [Sections 29 and 27-A of NDPS Act added later on] of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Hisar Sadar, District Hisar.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Inder Singh', who had reported that on 12.02.2023, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, a reliable source gave him a tip-off that 'Vinod S/o Manrup' was travelling in a car bearing registration No.HR26-BV-4268, and that he was carrying poppy straw in the abovementioned car. As per above-named police official, in view of abovementioned information, the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 2 car was intercepted, but the accused 'Vinod' managed to flee from the spot.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on search of abovementioned car, it was found that the above-named accused was carrying 74 kg of poppy straw in the abovesaid car. According to prosecution on recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, accused 'Vinod' was arrested and on interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that the abovementioned contraband was supplied to him by the co-accused, i.e. Shri Ram.
4 Notice of motion.
5 Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he was not found in conscious possession of contraband, allegedly recovered from the car of co-accused 'Vinod'. According to learned counsel MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 3 for the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated, merely, on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused 'Vinod', and that the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence, as the same was recorded, when the co-accused 'Vinod' was in police custody. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not travelling in the car, from which recovery of abovementioned contraband was effected, and that the benefit of bail has already been afforded to main accused, namely 'Vinod'.
8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of almost six months, and that the petitioner has clean antecedents.
9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that in the present case, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of 'commercial quantity', and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail cannot be afforded to the petitioner.
10. However, this fact has not been disputed by learned State Counsel. As per learned State counsel the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement, suffered by his co-accused 'Vinod' and that direct link between the petitioner and the commission of offence stands proved in this case.
11. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 4 State of Haryana' 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the benefit of bail to the accused.
12. Similarly, 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.
15. The record has been perused carefully.
16. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 5
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost six months;
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, and 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 the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;
v) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;
vi) that the benefit of bail has already been afforded to the co-
accused, namely Vinod, vide order dated 05.08.2025, passed by this Court;
MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 6
vii) that the name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR;
viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;
x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
17. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 7 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".
18. 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 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".
19. 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, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 8 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".
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21938 of 2026 (O&M) 9 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.
23. 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) JUDGE 27.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.27 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document