[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikramjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
Vikramjeet Singh
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: January 21,
21, 2026
2026
Date of Uploading: January 21, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. J.S. Moudgill, 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
No.0236 dated 27.07.2024,
registered for the offences
offences punishable under Section
Sections 18 & 25 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS
Act'), at Police Station Munak, Karnal.
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 6 kg 15 grams of opium from a white polythene bag kept
in a blanket in the diggi of a car bearing registration No.HR05GV
No.HR05GV-3847.
3847. The
said car was being driven by co-accused
co accused Ramphal @ Bhulli, while the other
1 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
co-accused, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju was seated on the passenger
seat. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of
disclosure of co-accused, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 18.12.2024. 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 iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof
cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated
that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure
statement of co-accused, namely Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju. Learned counsel
has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more
than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody
certificate dated 19.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Status report by way of an affidavit dated 14.12.2025 has already been filed.
Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, 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.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
2 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
6. The petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2024, whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 21.01.2025. Total
19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 03 have been
examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take its own time.
The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question
solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Sanjeev
Kumar @ Sanju. 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
Punjab, passed in
passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab
CRM--M-65094
CRM 65094--2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon
the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan
3 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
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 factors is essential to ensure
that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."
6.2. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be
saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 19.01.2026 filed
by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration
for a period of 01 year, 01 month and 01 day. 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.
6.3. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of
Punjab passed in CRM
CRM--M-64074
64074--2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying
4 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul
Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494;
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC
311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as "Chitta
Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal"; "Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal", Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh
vs. The State of Gujarat"; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated
05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India,
and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR
(Criminal) 172; has held, thus:
"7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a
vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate
anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any
impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an
overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has
been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the
above-referred to Supreme Court's judgments have laid down a series of
decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of
speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint
imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible
prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since
the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings
consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early
hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The
overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant
pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire
criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this
cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the
accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the
criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The
guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent
delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to
proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a
5 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-
trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and
public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects
against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the
passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend
himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention
are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are
subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually
under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of
such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his
family.
There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves
consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to
accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of
contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition
in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the
rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates
that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public
prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused's
fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty
cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process,
particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor
justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual
cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking
refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The
legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of
the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts
under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson's
eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this
legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does
not become complicit in violation of an individual's fundamental rights,
notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail
petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative
intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused
to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable
cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment,
an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity.
Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has
failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged
incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life
and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty
overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other
words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the
ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985."
6.4. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is
stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a
6 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
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, 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.
7 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-54558-
54558-2025
(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)
GOEL)
JUDGE
January 21, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
