about 5 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co was apprehended a effected from the petitioner and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. contends that the petitioner is in custody for about 5 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused, Jashandeep Singh @ Abhi, who was apprehended at the spot and is in custody. There is no recovery cted from the petitioner and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. He is not involved in any other case. nds that the petitioner is in custody for about 5 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on accused, Jashandeep Singh @ Abhi, who the spot and is in custody. There is no recovery cted from the petitioner and no evidence has also emerged to connect him to the case, but for the aforesaid disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, He is not involved in any other case. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. The custody certificate dated 11.01.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 4 months and 28 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled by the co-accused against the petitioner from whom commercial quantity of contraband was recovered. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions made and petitioner being not involved in other case. 5. Heard. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 4 months and 28 days; not involved in any other case; the trial is yet to commence and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 7. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same. 8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.