[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varun Kumar @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
122 CRM-M-19554-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
Date of uploading: 22.04.2026
Varun Kumar @ Vicky
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:- Mr. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (old Section 439 of Cr. P.C.)
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.196 dated
02.12.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22/27/29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS
Act'), at Police Station Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged
recovery of 160 strips of Clovedol 100 SR tablets, each strip containing 10 tablets
total 1600 tablets containing Tramadol Hydro (weighing 286.40 grams) from the
co-accused of the petitioner namely Dara Singh and the petitioner has been
nominated in this case on the disclosure of other co-accused namely Guraditta
Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is
in custody since 04.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-19554-2026 (O&M)
further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects.
Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an
accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Guraditta Singh.
Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration
for more than 04 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing
that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus,
he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel
seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.04.2026 in the Court today,
which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.12.2025 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan is yet to be presented. The petitioner
has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of Guraditta Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is
no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except
for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure
statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary
value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this
unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity
of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the
spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-19554-2026 (O&M)
rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be
ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may
prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering
with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed
by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M-
65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio
decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul
Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control
Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta & Anr.', 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State
of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided
on 17.05.2023, has held thus:
"6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession
made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very
weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the
sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with
utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover,
no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has
been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure
statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and
liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between
safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of
justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility
of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of
the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in
accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating
a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the
circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated,
including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner
to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-19554-2026 (O&M)
factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused
or misdirected."
6.2. Further, as per custody certificate dated 20.04.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 04 months and 15 days, & is shown to be involved in other FIR(s).
However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the
concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case
is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating
upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a
Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of
Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court
in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana,
decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is
not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in
addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-19554-2026 (O&M)
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the
trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and
shall not change his cell-phone number without prior
permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every
month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the
effect that he has not been involved in commission of any
offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is
found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged
on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or
otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for
cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be
ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which
may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant
shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
April 22, 2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
