[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savej Alias Montu Alias Abdul vs State Of Haryana on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
225 CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.04.2026
Savej @Montu @Abdul
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Ankush Sihag, Advocate and
Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the second petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.177 dated
06.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections ,
29 of and Section 238 of
Police Station Partap Nagar, District
Yamuna Nagar.
2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI
Kuldeep Singh'. It was reported by the abovenamed police officer that on
06.12.2025, when he was leading a team of police officials, he received a
tip-off from a reliable source, who informed that 'Charan Singh' and 'Sumit
Kumar' were involved in the activities of selling narcotic substance. As per
abovenamed police officer in view of abovementioned information, a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP-11AS-5935 was intercepted and
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
from the riders of the abovementioned motorcycle namely Charan Singh and
Sumit Kumar, 2400 capsules containing Tramadol salt (weighing 1.290) kg
were recovered.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR and arrest of accused were completed
and further investigation taken up.
4. As per prosecution during the course of investigation, when the
accused Charan Singh and Sumit Kumar were interrogated, they suffered
their respective disclosure statements, wherein they nominated Sombir Singh
as the supplier of abovementioned contraband.
5. According to prosecution in view of abovementioned
information, when Sombir Singh was arrested and interrogated, he
nominated the present petitioner as the supplier of abovementioned
contraband.
6. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
7. Heard.
8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the only evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against the
petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused and that nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. It has
also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than four months and
thirteen days and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel in the
present case, the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the ambit of
commercial quantity and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions
enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner should not be
enlarged on bail.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. 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
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.
11. Similarly, in the case of 'Surender Kumar Khanna Vs.
Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence' 2018(8) SCC 271,
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.
12. 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
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
of an accused can be used only against the person making the same, and not
against the co-accused.
13. 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.
14. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
15. 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(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, 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".
16. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
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".
17. 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".
18. 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 the accused as mandated
CRM-M-16271-2026 (O&M)
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
19. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
20. 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 abovementioned concession
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 to disclose 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
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
28.04.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
