[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh Alias Soni Mehar vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12356-2026
Date of decision: 13.03.2026
Date of uploading: 13.03.2026
Nirmal Singh @ Soni Mehar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
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.57 dated
29.07.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
'NDPS Act'), at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
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 1 kg of
heroin, allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner namely
Sohan Lal @ Kala, Veer Singh, Baljit Singh @ Bita, Poonam @ Mona and
Baljinder Singh @ Tota.
1 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 23.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not
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
Sohan Lal @ Kala. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner
has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year & 6 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 12.03.2026 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 23.08.2024 whereinafter
investigation qua him was carried out and challan was presented on
13.10.2024. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which
one has been examined and 2 have been given up 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 Sohan Lal @ Kala. As per the
2 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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 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
3 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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. 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
4 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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.
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
5 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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
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 said custody certificate filed today by the learned
State counsel the petitioner has undergone 1 year, 6 months & 15 days and is
stated to be involved in five more cases/FIRs. 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 Singh v. State of
6 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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.
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
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.
7 of 8
CRM-M-12356-2026
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
March 13, 2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
