[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilsher Alias Chota vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2026
CRM-M-11909-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.219
CRM-M-11909-2026
Decided on : 16.04.2026
Dilsher alias Chhota
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
***
Present : Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Kanchan Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana
***
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.291 dated 10.08.2025, registered under Sections
21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
and Section 111(2)(ii) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sadar, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 10.08.2025,
ASI Jasjit Singh along with his fellow police officials was on patrolling duty
and on the basis of secret information, they apprehended co-accused
Alladiya and Amzad, who were found in conscious possession of 680 grams
heroin. Initially, the FIR was registered against the said co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in
authenticity of this order/judgment
the FIR and he has no concern with the said incident. It has also been
contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis
of disclosure statement made by co-accused Amanat @ Monu. Apart from
the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner
with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of
co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery
is to be effected from the petitioner. He is in custody since 15.08.2025. The
investigation in this case is complete, challan stands presented, charges have
been framed and out of 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined
till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and
no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore,
it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which is
taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by
submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.
She has submitted that the recovery of alleged contraband effected from the
co-accused in the present case falls under the commercial quantity. She has
further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
5. A query was raised by this Court to learned State counsel as to
whether apart from the disclosure statement, any material has been found
during investigation to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband,
to which he answered that there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with
the offence.
6. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
2026.04.17 12:48 regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11909-2026 3
concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2020 Supreme Court 5592', relevant whereof reads as under:
"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".
7. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled
as 'Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs. State
of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau' 2024 INSC 290', has reiterated the
ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tofan Singh (supra).
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a plea for grant
of anticipatory bail in a case under NDPS Act, 1985; in a judgment titled as
'Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under:
"The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under
Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act". His
application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High
Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy
Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The
petitioner concededly was not present at the spot but was
MAMTA MALHOTRA named by the co-accused. That apart there is no other material
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11909-2026 4
to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another
case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS
Act are pending against the petitioner. It is not denied that in
those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these
circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on
anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the
trial Court may impose. The petition is allowed. All pending
applications are disposed of."
9. The petitioner is sought to be arrayed solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused. Suffice to say there is no other material
available to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. The
veracity of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be subject
to comprehensive scrutiny during the course of the trial and same cannot be
a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 07 months and 25 days; the investigation in this case
is completed; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 24
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that trial
may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by
detaining the petitioner in further custody. His further detention without the
prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of
his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind bars,
till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11909-2026 5
his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of
India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
12. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner
is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts
and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely
on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
16.04.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL )
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
