CRM-M-69151- 110-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ajay Kumar State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0054 dated 25.01.2025 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on basis of a secret information, the police party apprehended co and Kapil Dev, who were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR 0185. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev was sitting along with him. (90 strips containing 24 capsules each) milligrams, allegedly containing Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen salt Sr. No. 238 ZH of the Schedule attached with -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 25.01.2025, registered under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Krishna Gate Thanesar, District Kurukshetra The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on basis of a secret information, the police party apprehended co , who were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR 0185. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev was sitting along with him. On search of the vehicle, ntaining 24 capsules each), weighing , allegedly containing Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen salt, which is a psychotropic substance listed at Sr. No. 238 ZH of the Schedule attached with the NDPS Act -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69151-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana with petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. , registered under Section 22 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and 29 of NDPS Act added later on) Krishna Gate Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.01.2025, on the basis of a secret information, the police party apprehended co-accused Satbir Singh , who were travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR-07AA 0185. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev was On search of the vehicle, 2160 capsules of AKS Primevon , weighing 1 Kg. 300 grams and 32 Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol , which is a psychotropic substance listed at the NDPS Act, were recovered. The petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. Narcotic Drugs and 29 of NDPS Act added later on), , on the Singh 07AA- 0185. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev was 2160 capsules of AKS Primevon Kg. 300 grams and 32 Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol , which is a psychotropic substance listed at The TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69151- present petitioner was during the disclosure statement of co which he was nominated as an accused in the present case. There FIR was registered after allegedly complying with the necessary provisions of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated named in the FIR recovery. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of of Tramadol was effected from the car of co who were apprehended on the spot. petitioner has been nominated accused, which by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence in from the said disclosure statements, there is record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. the petitioner is in and the challan has already been presented of the case is likely to take co-accused Sumit has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a ordinate Bench of this Court anticipatory bail of parity. It is also argued that although the 37151-2025 was dismissed on 29.09.2025 for a substantial period thereafter warranting consideration of the present second bail petition. -2025 (O&M) present petitioner was not apprehended at the spot disclosure statement of co-accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev which he was nominated as an accused in the present case. There FIR was registered after allegedly complying with the necessary provisions of the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was named in the FIR and was not present at the spot recovery. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of was effected from the car of co-accused who were apprehended on the spot. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statements of the co , which by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence in from the said disclosure statements, there is no independent material record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. the petitioner is in custody since 26.01.2025, the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. accused Sumit has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a ordinate Bench of this Court, whereas co-accused Arjun Bhola has been granted anticipatory bail, and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the It is also argued that although the first bail petition bearing CRM 2025 was dismissed on 29.09.2025, the petitioner has remained in custody substantial period thereafter, which constitutes a warranting consideration of the present second bail petition. -2- not apprehended at the spot, and his name surfaced only accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev, after which he was nominated as an accused in the present case. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered after allegedly complying with the necessary provisions of the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been It is contended that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of 2160 capsules accused Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev Learned counsel further submits that the only on the basis of disclosure statements of the co , which by themselves do not constitute substantive evidence in law. Apart no independent material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that , the investigation stands completed before the learned trial Court. The trial Learned counsel also submits that accused Sumit has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a accused Arjun Bhola has been granted , and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle first bail petition bearing CRM- , the petitioner has remained in custody , which constitutes a change in circumstance warranting consideration of the present second bail petition. , and his name surfaced only , after after, the present FIR was registered after allegedly complying with the necessary provisions of the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been It is contended that the petitioner was not at the time of the alleged 2160 capsules Satbir Singh and Kapil Dev, Learned counsel further submits that the only on the basis of disclosure statements of the co- law. Apart available on It is further submitted that ompleted, before the learned trial Court. The trial Learned counsel also submits that accused Sumit has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a co- accused Arjun Bhola has been granted principle -M- , the petitioner has remained in custody change in circumstance TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69151- 4. Per contra, which is taken on record. bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are they relate to offences under th petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the of the co-accused petitioner is alleged to be a State counsel does not dispute that the petitioner was and that his name surfaced during the also not disputed that the petitioner has been State counsel further submits that the completed and the Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone record of the case. 6. It is not disputed that the not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery contraband was allegedly effected from the vehicle of co Kapil Dev, who were apprehended by the police party. surfaced only in the disclosure statements of the co appears to be no other independent material on record connecting the peti with the alleged recovery the investigation in the present case stands completed been presented before the learned trial Court likely to take considerable time -2025 (O&M) Per contra, learned State counsel has filed the which is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are they relate to offences under the NDPS Act petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the accused, and as per the investigation conducted by the police, the petitioner is alleged to be a supplier of the contra State counsel does not dispute that the petitioner was and that his name surfaced during the disclosure statement of the co also not disputed that the petitioner has been in custod State counsel further submits that the investigation in the present case stands and the challan has already been presented I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone record of the case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery contraband was allegedly effected from the vehicle of co , who were apprehended by the police party. surfaced only in the disclosure statements of the co no other independent material on record connecting the peti with the alleged recovery. The petitioner has been investigation in the present case stands completed been presented before the learned trial Court, and the conclusion of the trial is considerable time. -3- learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statements , and as per the investigation conducted by the police, the supplier of the contraband substance. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is in custody since 26.01.2025. Learned investigation in the present case stands challan has already been presented before the learned trial I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery. The recovery of the contraband was allegedly effected from the vehicle of co-accused Satbir Singh and , who were apprehended by the police party. The name of the petitioner surfaced only in the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and at this stage, there no other independent material on record connecting the petitioner The petitioner has been in custody since 26.01.2025, and investigation in the present case stands completed. The challan has already , and the conclusion of the trial is custody certificate, Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of , as It is further submitted that the basis of disclosure statements , and as per the investigation conducted by the police, the However, learned not apprehended at the spot . It is Learned investigation in the present case stands before the learned trial through the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was . The recovery of the atbir Singh and name of the petitioner , and at this stage, there tioner , and challan has already , and the conclusion of the trial is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69151- 7. Though it is true that the dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2025 custody for a substantial period circumstances. 8. The evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co absence of recovery or corroboration is weak in view of the settled position of law laid down by t Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023' has held as under: "The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 15 1985 anticipatory bail The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was not apart there is prosecution urges that offence under the NDPS not denied that in those regard to these circumstances, enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the trial Court may 9. Without expressing any opinion on the considering the -2025 (O&M) Though it is true that the first bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2025, however, the petitioner has remained in substantial period thereafter, which constitutes a The evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co absence of recovery or corroboration is weak in view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘ Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on has held as under: The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda Post) was recovered from the co-accused. The petitio was not present at the spot but was named by the co apart there is no other material to implicate the petitioner. The prosecution urges that another case with allegations of commission of offence under the NDPS Act are pending not denied that in those proceedings he was granted bail. Having regard to these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the trial Court may impose. The petition is Without expressing any opinion on the considering the period of custody, the stage of the trial, the nature of allegations, -4- first bail petition of the petitioner was , however, the petitioner has remained in , which constitutes a material change in The evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of recovery or corroboration is weak in view of the settled position of law eme Court in ‘Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for was rejected by the High Court. The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda accused. The petitioner concededly present at the spot but was named by the co-accused. That no other material to implicate the petitioner. The another case with allegations of commission of Act are pending against the petitioner. It is proceedings he was granted bail. Having the petitioner is directed to the enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as impose. The petition is allowed.” Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and period of custody, the stage of the trial, the nature of allegations, first bail petition of the petitioner was , however, the petitioner has remained in material change in accused, in the absence of recovery or corroboration is weak in view of the settled position of law Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana’, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 decided on The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter called the NDPS Act)". His application for The allegations in the FIR are that 1.7 Kg of Poppy Straw (Doda ner concededly accused. That no other material to implicate the petitioner. The another case with allegations of commission of against the petitioner. It is proceedings he was granted bail. Having the petitioner is directed to the such terms and conditions as , and period of custody, the stage of the trial, the nature of allegations, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69151- and the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot view that the petitioner deserves the concession of 10. Consequently, the present petition is ordered to be released on regular bail surety bonds to the concerned. 11. However, it is made clear that shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case 12. All pending miscellaneous March 07, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) and the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot view that the petitioner deserves the concession of Consequently, the present petition is released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- and the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is , subject to his furnishing bail bonds and satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE s Court is of the The petitioner is bail bonds and satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate any observation made hereinabove application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.08 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document