CRM-M-2220 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 227 Sunil State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 FIR No. 197 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act’) at Police Station 2. petition are that on 25.08.2024, co by a police party and recovery of 6240 intoxicant capsules, having salt of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride, 1950 tablets of Alprazolam and 50 small bottles of Chlorampheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate was effected from him. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of afo wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from present petitioner 28.08.2024. 2220-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 197 dated 25.08.2024, registered under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 25.08.2024, co-accused Parmod Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 6240 intoxicant capsules, having salt of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride, 1950 tablets of Alprazolam and 50 small bottles of Chlorampheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate was effected from him. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of afo wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from present petitioner. The petitioner along with one Azad was arrested on 28.08.2024. The petitioner nominated one Shokat, from whom he had IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2220-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 02.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing , registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this accused Parmod Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 6240 intoxicant capsules, having salt of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride, 1950 tablets of Alprazolam and 50 small bottles of Chlorampheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate was effected from him. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from The petitioner along with one Azad was arrested on nominated one Shokat, from whom he had -1- 2025 (O&M) Decided on : 02.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent 483 of seeking regular bail in case bearing of the (for short ‘NDPS Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this accused Parmod Kumar was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 6240 intoxicant capsules, having salt of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride, 1950 tablets of Alprazolam and 50 small bottles of Chlorampheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate was effected from him. During the course of accused was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the recovered contraband from the The petitioner along with one Azad was arrested on nominated one Shokat, from whom he had MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2220 procured the contraband. Co His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had purchased the contraband from co necessary investigation and usual forma Court and presently, the petitioner along with co commission of aforesaid offence 3. has been falsely implicated in thi spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co petitioner. relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in the petitioner with the subject crime. accused Mohan Lal, Azad of regular bail by this Cour 18.02.2025 and CRM petitioner too deserves the same benefit. 28.08.2024. Trial is likely to take time. keeping the petitioner petition deserves to be allowed. 2220-2025 (O&M) procured the contraband. Co-accused Shokat was also arrested on 30.08.2024. His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had purchased the contraband from co-accused Mohan Lal. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, Court and presently, the petitioner along with co commission of aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not found at the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in To fortify this argument, learned counsel for t relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. Even otherwise, s accused Mohan Lal, Azad and Shokat have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide orders 18.02.2025 passed by this Court in CRM- CRM-M-65046-2024, respectively. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. 28.08.2024. Trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by the petitioner in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. accused Shokat was also arrested on 30.08.2024. His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had accused Mohan Lal. After completion of lities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner s case. The petitioner was not found at the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement accused, which is not admissible in evidence against the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1. It is further argued that no subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to connect Even otherwise, similarly situated co have already been granted concession t, vide orders dated 14.01.2025, 28.02.2025 and CRM-M-56545-2024, CRM-M-400-202 , respectively. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit. The petitioner is in custody since No useful purpose would be served by in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the -2- accused Shokat was also arrested on 30.08.2024. His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had accused Mohan Lal. After completion of was presented in the accused is facing trial for Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner s case. The petitioner was not found at the spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement against the he petitioner has Tofan Singh It is further argued that no subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to connect ed co- have already been granted concession dated 14.01.2025, 28.02.2025 and 2025 , respectively. On the grounds of parity, the The petitioner is in custody since No useful purpose would be served by in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2220 4. submitted therein and learned argued that though the petitioner the disclosure suffered by the co investigation, petitioner co-accused Shokat, details record of the p the same would show that they were in constant touch with each other during relevant time. 5. order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titled as of Kerala, whereby in similar circumstances, the petitioner granted concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement as the alleged involvement was entirely based upon the co 6. and have also perused the material placed on record. 7. disclosure made by the petitioner apprehended by the police party at the spot and from whom, the recovery of aforementioned contraband was effected. After the arrest of the petitioner, incriminating 2220-2025 (O&M) Status report has been filed submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana argued that though the petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure suffered by the co-accused but during the course of ion, his involvement in the subject crime petitioner along with co-accused had procured the contraband from accused Shokat, which in turn was sold to co details record of the petitioner and co-accused was procured and a perusal of the same would show that they were in constant touch with each other during relevant time. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. In reply, learned counsel for the petitio order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titled as , whereby in similar circumstances, the petitioner concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement as the alleged involvement was entirely based upon the co-accused’s statement and alleged call details record. I have heard learned counsel for and have also perused the material placed on record. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure made by the co-accused Sunil. e petitioner was nominated by main accused Parmod Kumar, who was apprehended by the police party at the spot and from whom, the recovery of aforementioned contraband was effected. After the arrest of the petitioner, incriminating material was recovered from him. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is Assistant Advocate General, Haryana nominated in this case on the basis of accused but during the course of involvement in the subject crime has been established. The accused had procured the contraband from which in turn was sold to co-accused Parmod Kumar. Call accused was procured and a perusal of the same would show that they were in constant touch with each other during It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titled as Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs. State , whereby in similar circumstances, the petitioner-accused had been concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement as the alleged involvement was accused’s statement and alleged call details record. learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the A perusal of the record reveals that was nominated by main accused Parmod Kumar, who was apprehended by the police party at the spot and from whom, the recovery of aforementioned contraband was effected. After the arrest of the petitioner, from him. He is not involved in any -3- State. It is Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has nominated in this case on the basis of accused but during the course of established. The accused had procured the contraband from accused Parmod Kumar. Call accused was procured and a perusal of the same would show that they were in constant touch with each other during ner has relied upon an order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs. State accused had been concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement as the alleged involvement was accused’s statement and alleged call details record. the parties at considerable length The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the A perusal of the record reveals that was nominated by main accused Parmod Kumar, who was apprehended by the police party at the spot and from whom, the recovery of aforementioned contraband was effected. After the arrest of the petitioner, no He is not involved in any MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2220 other case under the NDPS Act. Investigation has since been concluded and likely to take time. petitioner with the subject crime, except the aforesaid call details record, whereby he is shown to be in touch with co law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited authority, the same alone cannot no subsequent recovery of any narcotic substance was effected from him. Moreover, concession of regular bail by this Court keeping in view the opinion that custody anymore. 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. cancellation subsequent case. 8. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the cas 02.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2220-2025 (O&M) other case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody since Investigation has since been concluded and likely to take time. At this stage, there is nothing on record to petitioner with the subject crime, except the aforesaid call details record, whereby he is shown to be in touch with co law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited authority, the same alone cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner as no subsequent recovery of any narcotic substance was effected from him. Moreover, three similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court eeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition 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 subsequent case. 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. 02.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable The petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2024 Investigation has since been concluded and challan has been filed. Trial is At this stage, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the subject crime, except the aforesaid call details record, whereby he is shown to be in touch with co-accused. However, as per ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited authority, the be a ground to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner as no subsequent recovery of any narcotic substance was effected from him. accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, as mentioned above. Therefore, aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in 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 However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for petitioner is found involved in any other 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 (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- 28.08.2024. has been filed. Trial is connect the petitioner with the subject crime, except the aforesaid call details record, accused. However, as per ratio of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited authority, the be a ground to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner as no subsequent recovery of any narcotic substance was effected from him. accused have already been granted . Therefore, , I am of the considered no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in 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 However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for is found involved in any other 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 (MANISHA BATRA) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document