[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amit vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2026

                                                                            1
CRM-
CRM-M-1755-
      1755-2026




237
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                             CRM-
                             CRM-M-1755-
                                   1755-2026

Amit
                                                                  Petitioner
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                     versus
State of Haryana
                                                              ....Respondent

Date of Decision:
        Decision: January 21,
                          21, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 21,
                           21, 2026

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. Niraj Sinhmar, 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.169 dated 29.05.2025,,

registered for the offences offences punishable under Section Sections 20(C)/ 27A/ 61/ 85 of

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

Act'), at Police Station Sadar Narwana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 29.05.2025,,

within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Narwana Narwana, co-accused Ravi

Kumar, Chandan, and Manjeet were apprehended by ASI Avtar Singh,, along

with other police officials forming part of the raiding party, on the basis of

secret information. During the search, 21 kg 700 grams of ganja was

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-1755- 1755-2026

recovered from the possession of the co-accused, for which they had no

valid permit or licence. After completing all necessary procedural

formalities and in due compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, the

accused were arrested. During interrogation, the co-accused Ravi Kumar,

Chandan, and Manjeet disclosed that they had purchased the contraband

from Amit (petitioner herein) for a consideration of ₹2,00,000/-.

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

is in custody since 21.06.2025. 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 argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis

to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-

accused, namely Ravi Kumar, Chandan, and Manjeet. Learned counsel has

iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from co-accused

of the petitioner is of 21 kg 700 grams ganja, which is marginally above the

threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification

issued under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 06 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 seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

20.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-1755- 1755-2026

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 21.06.2025, whereinafter,

investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 21.11.2025.

Total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been

examined till date. Indubitably, conclusion of the trial will take long. The

petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on

the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Ravi Kumar,

Chandan, and Manjeet. 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.

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-

CRM-M-65094- 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)

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-1755- 1755-2026

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. It is also not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered

from the co-accused of the petitioner is 21 kg 700 grams ganja, which is

marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance

in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev

Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020;

Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on

11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-31820-2019,

decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab,

CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito

versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020,

wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-1755- 1755-2026

was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category

under the NDPS Act.

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.

6.3. As per custody certificate dated 20.01.2026 filed by the learned

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

of 06 months and 27 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

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

5 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-1755- 1755-2026

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

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, 21, 2026

mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No