[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijender vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-69942-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
125
CRM-M-69942-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.03.2026
Vijender ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
in FIR No. 428 dated 12.06.2025, registered under Section 20 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS
Act') at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that on 12.06.2025, co-accused Sachin Kaushik @ Tichkule was
apprehended by a police party and recovery of 39.520 kgs. of Ganja was
effected from his conscious possession. Since he could not produce any
valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered contraband,
he was formally arrested at the spot. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he
had purchased the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. On the
basis of the same, the petitioner was nominated in this case as an accused
1 of 4
CRM-M-69942-2025 (O&M) -2-
and was arrested on 17.08.2025. Investigation now stands completed and
challan has been filed.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was
neither found at the spot nor was named in the FIR. He has been nominated
in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the co-
accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. No
subsequent recovery has been effected from him. There is nothing on record
to show that the petitioner was involved in the subject crime in any manner
with the co-accused. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature.
Even otherwise, investigation has since been completed and challan has been
filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as only four out
of total fourteen prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The
petitioner is in custody since long. No useful purpose would be served by
keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition
deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular
bail.
4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the
respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as his
criminal antecedents and the fact that commercial quantity of contraband has
been recovered in this case, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail
as rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. It is,
thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while
2 of 4
CRM-M-69942-2025 (O&M) -3-
considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in
mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature
and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; the danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail
and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period
of incarceration is also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also
unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with
offence under the provisions of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions
stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A contention has been raised that the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case as
there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.
7. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the petitioner
was disclosed by the above named co-accused, from whom recovery of
commercial quantity of the contraband was effected. As per his disclosure
statement, he had sourced the contraband from the petitioner. In Tofan
Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by
Hon'ble Apex Court that the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of
NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence unless corroborated by independent
material. While the veracity of the disclosure statement against the petitioner
will be tested during the course of trial, however, at this stage, it cannot be
ignored that no recovery was ever effected from the petitioner. The
petitioner was arrested on 17.08.2025. There is nothing on record, at this
stage, to connect the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that
3 of 4
CRM-M-69942-2025 (O&M) -4-
he was connected with the co-accused in any manner at the relevant time.
Investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of
trial would take considerable time as mentioned above. Pendency of other
cases against the petitioner cannot be considered to be a ground for denying
him benefit of bail in the given circumstances. Keeping in view the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody
anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other
subsequent case.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
23.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
