[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parkash @ Bhagta @ Langra vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

                                                                                                       1
                     CRM-
                     CRM-M-22691-
                           22691-2026




                     228
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-
                                                      CRM-M-22691-
                                                            22691-2026

                     Parkash @ Bhagta @ Langra
                                                                                            ....Petitioner
                                                                                              Petitioner
                                                              versus

                     State of Haryana
                                                                                           ....Respondent

                     Date of Decision: April 29,
                                             29, 2026
                     Date of Uploading: April 29,
                                              29, 2026

                     CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present:-
                     Present:          Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

                                                              *****

                     SUMEET GOEL,
                            GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner, petitioner in case bearing FIR No.25 dated 14.02.2025, registered for the

offences ences punishable under Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') Act'), at Police

Station Lakhan Majra, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

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 1 kilogram 403 gram charas from co co-accused of the petitioner,

namely, Vikram, Vikram and the same co-accused, on the basis of his disclosure,

nominated the present petitioner in this case.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-22691- 22691-2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is

in custody since 27.09.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied

with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned

counsel has urged that the sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the

disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Vikram, from whom the alleged

contraband was recovered, and the said disclosure is not tenable in law.

Learned counsel has submitted that even said co-accused, namely, Vikram has

been granted concession of regular bail, vide order dated 20.04.2026 passed by

this Court in CRM-

CRM-M-16716- 16716-2026.

2026 Learned counsel has further iterated that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 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,

the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State

counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned

State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 28.04.2026, 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 is in custody since 27.09.2025, whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on

27.03.2026. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none

has been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in

the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused -

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-22691- 22691-2026

Vikram from whom the contraband in question was recovered, and said co-

accused has been afforded concession of regular bail by this Court. As per

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 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

Punjab, passed in CRM by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab CRM--M-

65094--2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio 65094

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:

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-22691- 22691-2026

"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 factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."

6.2. As per custody certificate dated 28.04.2026 filed by the learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of

07 months and 01 day.

6.3. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated

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

Haryana Singh v. State of H aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of

Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-22691- 22691-2026

In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

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.

allowed Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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.

(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

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-22691- 22691-2026

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.