[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karamchand Sahu vs Union Of India Narcotics Control ... on 23 March, 2026

CRM-M-65755
       5755-2025 (O&M)                         1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                                    CRM-M-65755-2025 (O&M)

KARAMCHAND SAHU                                                   ... Petitioner

                                     Versus

UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS CONTROL
                               L BUREAU CHANDIGARH

                                                                 ...Respondent
1      The date when the judgment is reserved                   19.03.2026
2      The date when the judgment is pronounced                 23.03.2026
3      The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026
4      Whether only operative part of the judgment is           Full
       pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5      The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not applicable
       and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:     Mr.
              r. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner

             Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor with
             Mr. Vinayak Attri and Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocates
             For respondent-NCB
                 respondent NCB (Union of India)

                         ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sho short "BNSS") for grant

of regular bail ail in case arising out of NCB Crime No.2 dated 15.01.2024

registered under Sections 8, 18B, 18 , 29 and 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh.

2. As per the allegations on 15.01.2024, a secret information was

received that one Amanpreet Singh was coming from Jharkhand with huge

1 of 6

CRM-M-65755

consignment of opium, opium that hee was travelling in Kia Seltos Car bearing

Registration No.PB-91R-9479, No.PB , going to Ludhiana and was as to cross Shambhu

Toll Plaza, Ambala and he could be apprehended, if a barricade was laid. The

aforementioned car was intercepted, when it reached at Shambhu Toll Plaza.

The driver of the car disclosed his name as Amanpreet Singh. 37 packets of

opium weighing 38.080 KGs, K were found kept in the car which was taken into

possession. The accused Amanpreet Singh suffered a disclosure statement to

the effect that he used to purchase contraband from one Rammohan Sahu @

Sonu Sahu @ Sonu and the recovered contraband traband was also purchased from him

on 11.01.2024. He disclosed that even his debit car card was given to the co--

accused for withdrawing payments for sale of contraband. Upon his disclosure,

the co-accused accused Rammohan Sahu was arrested on 01.02.2024. He suffered d

disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about receipt of

a sum of Rs.8-9 9 lakhs from the co-accused co accused Amanpreet Singh. The bank account

details of the co-accused co were also procured. The accused Rammohan Sahu

suffered another disclosure disclosure statement to the effect that his brother Karamchan

Sahu i.e. the petitioner was also involved in drug trafficking trafficking. The petitioner was

involved in some other case and his presence was secured by way of production

warrants and he was formally arrested on 26.10.2024. He suffered disclosure

statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Out of the recovered 38.080

KG opium, 08 Kg was arranged by him. He further disclosed that he used to

purchase opium from the farmers engaged in illegal cul cultivation tivation and operate

through his brother Ram Mohan Sahu and co-accused co accused Sanjay Sahu. He owned

various properties and vehicles which were earned from the business of drug

2 of 6

CRM-M-65755

trafficking. Some other co-accused co accused were also arrested subsequently. The

petitioner is presently facing trial before the learned Trial Court for commission

of the aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co co--

accused cused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He is in

custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His

further incarceration would would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in

other cases cannot be considered considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to

him. Moreover, he has been granted regular bail in 02 other cases from this

Court. The co-accused accused has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he

too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that he

deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that there

are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He was also one of

the supplier of the contraband.

contraband. He and his family members are involved in the

business of drug trafficking. He is a habitual offender. Provisions of Section 37

of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. There are chances of his committing

similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit benefit of bail. The trial is going on

at a proper pace since 04 out of 24 witnesses already stands examined. There

are call detail records showing that the petitioner was in continuous touch of the

co-accused accused Amanpreet Singh and used to talk to him. It is, therefore, argued

that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

3 of 6

CRM-M-65755

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of 2nd

disclosure ure statement of the co-accused co accused Ram Mohan Sahu. Co Co-accused accused

Amanpreet from whom recovery of contraband was effected did not name the

petitioner. Various call details have been exchanged between him and the co co--

accused Ram Mohan Sahu, Amanpreet Singh Singh and Bhagwant Singh. As per the

allegations, the petitioner was also a supplier of the contraband. Commercial

quantity of contraband had been recovered from the co co-accused accused though no such

recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The allegations prima facie

make out a case of complicity of the petitioner with the co co-accused accused in

commission of the subject offences by supplying ing the contraband to the latter.

However, owever, the petitioner has been in custody custody for a period of over 02 years and 04

months now and only 04 out of 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

far. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. The prolonged

incarceration of the petitioner militates against his most precious fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no basis

for the contention that he may abscond, if extended benefit of bail. Moreso, he

has been linked with the allegations on the basis of disclosure of co co-accused.

accused. 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

4 of 6

CRM-M-65755

ignored that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner

was arrested on 26.10.2024. There is nothing on record, at this stage, to connect

the petitioner either with the subject crime or to show that he was connected

with the co-accused accused in any manner at the relevant time. Investigation has been

completed. The co-accused co accused have already been granted concession of bail by this

Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid aforesaid facts and circumstances, his prolonged

incarceration and the above discussed facts and circumstances as peculiar to the

case and keeping in view the well settled proposition of law to the effect that the

pre-trial trial incarceration should not be a replica of of post post-conviction conviction sentencing, this

Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner would not serve

any fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing ppersonal ersonal as well as surety

bonds to the extent of two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any

manner whatsoever.