[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anip Alias Abib vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           233                                           CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                         Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

           Anip @ Abib

                                                                          ......Petitioner
                                                Versus
           State of Haryana
                                                                          ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Vikram Singh Lakhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

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.221 dated 24.07.2025, for

the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22-C and 29-A of

Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 18-A and

18-C of Drugs & Cosmetics Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Medical

Termination of Pregnancy Act, 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 Roshan Lal'. It was

reported by the above named police officer that on 24.07.2025 when he was

leading a team of police officials, deputed for crime prevention duty, he had

received a tip-off from a reliable source. As per above named police officer

he was informed that 'Satish Kumar' (co-accused in this case) was involved

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 2

in the trading of intoxicating tablets, intoxicating injections and MPT Kits.

According to above named police officer in view of above mentioned

information a raid was conducted and the above named accused 'Satish

Kumar' was apprehended. It was further stated by the above named police

officer that from the possession of above named accused 1540 injections of

'Tramadol Hydrochloride' (weight 3.08 KG) and 242 injections of 'Meridol'

(weight 121.03 grams), 112 'Tramadol' injections (weight 109.87 grams) 60

'MTP kit' and 600 tablets of 'Alprazolam' were recovered.

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, slapping 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 'Satish Kumar' was interrogated

he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he nominated the present

petitioner as supplier of the above mentioned contraband.

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

petitioner and reply in the form of affidavit duly sworn by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Narwana District Jind is already on record. The

same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. To deal with given fact-situation, the principles of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Vijay Singh Vs. The

State of Haryana' 2023 SCC OnlineSC 1235 are relevant. In the

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 3

abovementioned case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of

recovery and he was implicated solely on the basis of statement of co-accused.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case afforded the

benefit of bail to the accused.

7. Similarly, 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act

cannot be admitted in evidence, as a confession.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. 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

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 4

than eight 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, and 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 the investigation in this case is already complete and

therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the

possession of petitioner;

v) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near

future;

vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely

to serve any purpose;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 5

witnesses;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

12. 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

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 6

thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case".

13. 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 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".

14. 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

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 7

many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed

efficiently".

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

CRM-M No.12331 of 2026 (O&M) 8

of the trial; and