[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                   1


              CRM-M-16541-2026




              244              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                                                CRM-M-16541-2026
                                                                Date of decision: April 21, 2026

              DINESH KUMAR                                      ....Petitioner


                                                  Versus

              STATE OF HARYANA                                               ....Respondents


              CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH



              Present:         Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate and
                               Ms. Annie, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

                                     *****


              SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains to

a case arising out of FIR No.87 dated 03.05.2025, for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 15(c), 27(a) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of 'SI Rajender Kumar'. It was reported

by the above named police officer that on 03.05.2025 when he was leading a

team of police officials deputed for patrolling duty, a Fortuner car was

intercepted. As per above named police officer, 'Amit' (co-accused in this case)

CRM-M-16541-2026

was driving the abovesaid vehicle and when the abovementioned vehicle was

checked, it was found that abovementioned accused was carrying 55.42 kg of

poppy husk in the above said vehicle.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above

mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of

contraband, registration of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed

and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of

investigation when the accused 'Amit' was interrogated he suffered a disclosure

statement, wherein he nominated two co-accused namely Liladhar and

Mahender as supplier of the above mentioned contraband. As per prosecution,

thereafter two more disclosure statements of accused 'Amit' were recorded by

the Investigating Officer, and in his third disclosure statement, the accused

'Amit' disclosed the name of the petitioner as the supplier of above mentioned

contraband.

4. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the

petitioner. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six months and that

investigation, in this case, has already been completed. As per learned counsel

for the petitioner, the petitioner has clear antecedents and nothing has been

recovered from his possession. In view of above, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has contended that petitioner is entitled to benefit for bail.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned

arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case, there are

CRM-M-16541-2026

allegations against the petitioner that he was a supplier of contraband to the

accused 'Amit', from whose custody the contraband was recovered. As per

learned counsel for the State, there was money transaction between the

petitioner and co-accused 'Amit' before the recovery of contraband, and in

addition to above, there were multiple calls between the two. According to

learned State counsel, in view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the

petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

8. The similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Haryana' 2023 SCC

Online SC 1235, wherein the benefit of anticipatory bail has been accorded to an

accused in similar circumstance.

9. With regard to facts of the instant case the observation in the case

of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence' 2018(3) SCC Online SC 757, are relevant, wherein it has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the disclosure statement of co-

accused is inadmissible against another accused, as the disclosure statement is

not a substantive piece of evidence against other accused.

10. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Preet Kamal Vs. State of Punjab', 2018(4) RCR

(Criminal) 938, wherein it has been held that the disclosure statement of an

accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not against

the co-accused.

11. In 'Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', 2021(4) SCC 1 also, it

has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that confessional

CRM-M-16541-2026

statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be

admitted in evidence, as a confession.

12. The record has been perused carefully.

13. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in

the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than six months and twenty days;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner. There is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of fact has taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;

iv) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

CRM-M-16541-2026

14. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

"a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus

has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is

another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of

other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that

the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in

a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.

Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of

with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer

periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our

society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion

of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion

has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court

and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to

introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on

the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

15. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it

has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is

abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court

CRM-M-16541-2026

while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that

the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have

to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up

consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a

possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with

continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".

16. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six

to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said

that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been

infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad

for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system,

which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal

Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that

cases proceed efficiently".

17. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair

and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This

constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another'

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

CRM-M-16541-2026

18. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

19. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to

be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be

subject to following conditions:-

i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and