[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Hassan vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
259
CRM-M-16366-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16366-2026
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
MOHAMMAD HASSAN ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG Punjab.
.....
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.221 dated 18.08.2025, registered under Sections
22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Anti
Narcotics Force, ANTF Wing, District Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that
on 18.08.2025 police party acting upon a secret information apprehended
one Ramesh Kumar, who was found in conscious possession of 12000
intoxicant tablets containing Alprazolam. Initially the FIR in question was
registered against the said Ramesh Kumar.
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
authenticity of this order/judgment
spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the present
petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure
statement made by co-accused. 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
custodial interrogation is not admissible. No recovery is to be effected
from him. The petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any
other case. The petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025. He further
submits that co-accused Rajat has already been granted concession of
regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-56125-2025. The investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented, however, charges have not yet been
framed. He further submits that 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. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate and status report in the matter, which are taken on record and
while referring to the same, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the
petitioner is serious in nature. However, she could not controvert the fact
that the petitioner is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case.
5. A specific 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
contraband, to which she answered that there is nothing else to connect the
petitioner with the recovered contraband.
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
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 (Crl.) No.(s)1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under:
authenticity of this order/judgment
"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 from 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
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 04 months; investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented, charges have not been framed yet, co-
accused has already been granted concession of regular bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude,
authenticity of this order/judgment
no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His
continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the
near future would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to
infringement of her right to life 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 his 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)
23.04.2026 JUDGE
puneet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
