[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaz @ Eja vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
2026: PRG O85?
CRM-M-13821-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRM-M-13821-2026
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
AJAZ @ EJA
...-Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- § Mr. Saifuddin Shams, Advocate and
Ms. Shabnam Shams, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana.
36 2 2s 2k 2k
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.310 dated
21.08.2024 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station City Sohna, District
Gurugram (Annexure P-1).
2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, on
21.08.2024, police party was on a patrolling duty and on the basis of secret
information apprehended one person namely Jahir, who was found in
conscious possession of 49 kg and 220 grams of Ganja. Initially the FIR in
question was registered against Jahir.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with
the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was neither present at the spot
2026: PRG O85?
CRM-M-13821-2026
nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner was
nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made
by co-accused Jahir. 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/her custodial
interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected from him. The
petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2025. The investigation in the case is
complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 20
prosecution witnesses only 01 has been examined and as such, 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 of the
petitioner, 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 and that the contraband recovered is commercial in nature.
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 she 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
regarding nomination of accused on the basis of disclosure statement is
concerned, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the
2026: PRG O85?
CRM-M-13821-2026
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
(Ctl) No.(5)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 ftom the co-accused. The petitioner
concededly was not present at the spot but was named by the
co-accused. That apart there is no other material to implicate
the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with
CRM-M-13821-2026
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 the 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 01 year; investigation is complete; challan stands filed;
charges have been framed; out of 20 prosecution witnesses only 01 has been
examined and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful
purpose would be served by detaining her in further custody. Keeping the
petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being
concluded in the near future would be violative of her rights under Article 21
11. Reliance is placed upon in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Aur. 2018(2) R.C'R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till her guilt is
proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life
2026: PRG O85?
CRM-M-13821-2026
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. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Mohit Bishnoi
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
