[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 7 April, 2026
243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17196-2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
Date of Uploading: 07.04.2026
Parveen Kumar
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
*****
Present:- Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (Section 439
Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.268 dated
28.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act
added later-on), registered at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving
2500 tablets of Tramadol weighing 452.5 grams with drug money of Rs.
3000/- and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure
of co-accused, namely, Divyanshu @ Vishu.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have
not 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, Divyanshu @ Vishu. Learned counsel has further iterated that the
petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 04 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, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
04.04.2026 in the Court, 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 01.12.2025 whereafter
investigation was carried out but Challan has still not been presented
against him 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-Divyanshu @ Vishu, from whom 2500 tablets of Tramadol
weighing 452.5 grams was allegedly recovered. As per the 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. As per custody certificate dated 04.04.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 04 months and 01 day. Further, as per the said custody certificate
the petitioner is stated to be involved in another case/FIR. However, this
factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of
regular bail to the petitioner 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
Rashadi v. State of 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, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 191.
6.2. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment
passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in
CRM-M-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. 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."
6.3. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala
versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:
089161) has held thus:
"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates
emerge:
(I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of
1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of
Section 37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.
(iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-
applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is
procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-
applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in
Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the
conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be
successful.
IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in
Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant
material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited
purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of
guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of
scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the
final adjudication & culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any,
including material/documents in support thereof, may be
looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail
plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail':
(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as
requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of
re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere
theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of
the bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including
the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to
him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved
into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in
another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in
the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in
the future.
(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail,
impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he
would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may
stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before
concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa
(Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police
Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in
commission of any offence after being released on bail.
In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition
may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of
condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of
exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the
conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend
upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts
and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can
possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for
satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case
has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt
is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to
the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such
matter."
6.4. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37
of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
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
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 CJM/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.
(SUMEET GOEL)
April 07, 2026 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
