[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Javed Malik Alias Javed Ali vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-1999-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202
CRM-M-1999-2026
Decided on : 18.04.2026
Javed Malik alias Javed Ali . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising
out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Javed Malik alias 180 22.09.2025 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Division Jalandhar
Javed Ali [S. 29 of NDPS Act, added No.1 Commissionerate
later on]
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2025, one Swift car
bearing registration No. PB-08-FD-2993, being driven by accused Nitin
Sharma, was intercepted and, upon search of the vehicle, 87,000 intoxicant
tablets of Tramadol were recovered therefrom. Upon his arrest, accused
Nitin Sharma disclosed the names of co-accused Ajay and Amit, pursuant to
which further recovery of 1,12,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol was
effected from accused Ajay and 24,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol was
effected from accused Amit.
Thereafter, on the basis of a second disclosure statement
allegedly suffered by accused Nitin Sharma, the present petitioner, namely
Javed Malik alias Javed Ali, was nominated in the present case. However,
upon his arrest, nothing was recovered from his possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and his name surfaced only on the
basis of the second disclosure statement of the main accused Nitin Sharma.
It is further submitted that no recovery of any narcotic contraband has been
effected from the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a young
person aged about 30 years and that a disclosure statement, by itself, is a
weak piece of evidence, the evidentiary value whereof is to be tested during
the course of trial. Accordingly, it is prayed that keeping in view the fact that
the implication of the petitioner rests solely upon the disclosure statement of
the co-accused and no recovery has been effected from him, he deserves to
be extended the concession of regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate and status report dated 17.04.2026 in Court today. The same are
taken on record. Office is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.
Copies thereof have been handed over to learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail,
submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the main accused Nitin Sharma, from whose possession
87,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol were recovered. Besides, the petitioner
is also involved in one more case under the NDPS Act.
However, learned State counsel candidly admits that no
recovery of any narcotic contraband has been effected from the petitioner
and his implication rests solely upon the second disclosure statement of the
main accused. Besides, other factual assertions noticed here-above have not
been disputed by learned State counsel.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record with their able assistance, this Court
finds that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and no recovery of
any narcotic contraband has been effected from his possession. His name is
stated to have surfaced subsequently during the course of investigation on
the basis of a second disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused
Nitin Sharma.
The evidentiary value of such disclosure statement and the
extent of involvement of the petitioner are matters which would be required
to be examined during the course of trial on the basis of evidence led by the
prosecution. At this stage, no other substantive material has been pointed out
connecting the petitioner with the recoveries effected from the co-accused
persons.
Rather, on a query put by the Court, learned State counsel has
been unable to point out any specific material in the nature of telephonic
conversations, call details, or any substantial money trail linking the
petitioner with the other co-accused. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be
assumed that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie
well-founded unless the charges are established by the prosecution in
accordance with law during trial.
It is also not disputed that the petitioner is about 30 years of
age. So far as the other case under the NDPS Act, as referred to by learned
State counsel, is concerned, mere involvement in another case, by itself,
cannot be made the sole ground to deny concession of bail, particularly
when no recovery has been effected from the petitioner in the present case.
7. In view of the totality of these circumstances, and the nature
allegations leveled against the petitioner, including the factors noticed here-
above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the
petitioner, so as to afford the petitioner an opportunity to reform and
reintegrate himself in the society.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in
any other case.
8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly
or indirectly.
9. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is
expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on
record.
10. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly
found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be
cancelled.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 18, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
