Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Alias Lal Bahadur vs State Of Haryana on 27 January, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-3066-
3066-2026
232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-3066-
3066-2026
Vikas @ Lal Bahadur
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of decision: January 27,
27, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 27,
27, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0209 dated 30.09.2025,, registered for the offences offences punishable under Section Sections 21(b) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.
2. The gravamen of FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 05 grams 27 miligrams of Heroin fro from co-accused, accused, namely, Amit Kumar, Kumar when Amit Kumar and another co co-accused, accused, namely, Satish Kumar were apprehended by the police, upon suspicion, while they 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:28 ::: 2 CRM-
CRM-M-3066- 3066-2026 were riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-22K-4724. On the basis of disclosure of said co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated, in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Amit Kumar and Satish Kumar. Learned counsel has also argued that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Satish has already been granted concession of regular bail by the Court below, vide order dated 31.10.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 24.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.10.2025 whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been presented on 28.11.2025. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:29 ::: 3 CRM-
CRM-M-3066- 3066-2026 but none has been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Amit Kumar and Satish Kumar. Concededly, co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Satish has been afforded concession of regular bail by the trial Court. As per prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, Punjab passed in CRM--M-65094 CRM 65094--2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:29 ::: 4 CRM-
CRM-M-3066- 3066-2026 Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.', 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus:
"6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."
6.2. As per custody certificate dated 24.01.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months & 20 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the appellant in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:29 ::: 5 CRM-
CRM-M-3066- 3066-2026 Rashadi v. State of U.P. U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Har yana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.
In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:29 ::: 6 CRM-
CRM-M-3066- 3066-2026 offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE January 27, 27, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2026 06:51:29 :::