Umesh Yadav Alias Motu vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 1979 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Umesh Yadav Alias Motu vs State Of Haryana on 27 February, 2026

136
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                         CRM-M-9779-2026
                                                Date of decision: 27.02.2026
                                               Date of uploading: 27.02.2026


Umesh Yadav @ Motu                                           ....Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Haryana                                               ....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-   Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

                                     *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.135 dated

09.09.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 17(c) & 29

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

'NDPS Act'), at Police Station Odhan, District Sirsa.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an

accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 2 kg

768 grams of opium, allegedly found in possession of the co-accused of the

petitioner namely Mukesh Yadav.

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

is in custody since 09.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not

1 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

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

Mukesh Yadav. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has

suffered incarceration for more than 3 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 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 26.02.2026 in Court, 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 09.11.2025 and challan is still

not presented. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in

question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Mukesh

Yadav. 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

2 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

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 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

3 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

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. Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala

versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025

(2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus:

"14. As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following postulates emerge:

(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc.

(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.

II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.

4 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful.

IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. "there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence":

(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea.

(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial.

(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea.

V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. 'he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail':

(i) The word 'likely' ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-

offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.

(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future.

(iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii).

VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for

5 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter."

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

of the NDPS Act stands diluted.

7. As per the custody certificate filed today by the learned State

counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 3 months

and 17 days & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR/case

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an

undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. 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.

(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

6 of 7

CRM-M-9779-2026

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.

9. 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.

10. Ordered accordingly.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous

application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

                                                            (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                                JUDGE

February 27, 2026
Naveen
                 Whether speaking/reasoned:                       Yes/No

                     Whether reportable:                          Yes/No




                                     7 of 7