235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. ROBIN GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA 2. RAM MEHAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. (in CRM Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above petitions as both the petitioners are co FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from titled as Robin Gupta vs. State of Haryana. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ROBIN GUPTA V/S HARYANA RAM MEHAR V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M No.17984 of 2025) Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M No.23081 of 2025) Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of both the above petitions as both the petitioners are co-accused For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from Gupta vs. State of Haryana. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.05.2025 CRM-M-17984-2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT CRM-M-23081-2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT ARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned accused and are involved in the same For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRM-M-17984-2025 MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-17984 & 01 connected case 2. Prayer in 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner 09.02.2025 registered under Sections Civil Line, District Kaithal. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.02.2025, ASI Rajesh Kumar along with co prevention of crime near railway crossing, bus stand Kaithal, where secret informer informed him of Ram Kumar, are indulged in selling narcotics tablets near bus stand, Kaithal and Hanuman Vatika, Kaithal and they would come at Randhir Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal for sale of narcotic tablets to drug apprehended along with narcotic tablets. under Section 42 of NDPS Act was prepared and sent to police station Civil Line Kaithal and a motorcycle from the side of Sugar Mill, Kaithal and were apprehended asking, the driver of motorcycle disclosed his name Sanjeev son of Ram Kumar, resident of Kapil Nagar, Kaithal Vikram @ Kalu son of Daya Ram, resident of was having a polythene in his hand of banned tablets i.e. 10 tablets in each strip of Tramadol Hydrochloride Sustained Release Tablets IP 1 were narcotic tablets by keeping 900 banned narcotic tablets weighing 278.1 grams offence under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, on which Tahrir was sent to police station and FIR was got lodged. 17984-2025 2 & 01 connected case Prayer in these petitions filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner registered under Sections 22-C/29 of NDPS Act istrict Kaithal. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.02.2025, ASI Rajesh Kumar along with co-police officials was on patrolling duty for prevention of crime near railway crossing, bus stand Kaithal, where secret informer informed him that Vikram @ Kalu son of Daya Ram and Sanjeev son of Ram Kumar, are indulged in selling narcotics tablets near bus stand, Kaithal and Hanuman Vatika, Kaithal and they would come at Randhir Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal for sale of narcotic tablets to drug ded along with narcotic tablets. Upon the said information, notice under Section 42 of NDPS Act was prepared and sent to police station Civil and after about 10-15 minutes two persons le from the side of Sugar Mill, Kaithal and were apprehended the driver of motorcycle disclosed his name Sanjeev son of Ram Kumar, resident of Kapil Nagar, Kaithal and pillion rider disclosed his name Vikram @ Kalu son of Daya Ram, resident of was having a polythene in his hand. On search of the said polythene, 90 strips of banned tablets i.e. 10 tablets in each strip of Tramadol Hydrochloride Sustained Release Tablets IP 100 mg, Trohma arcotic tablets and were banned. As such, by keeping 900 banned narcotic tablets weighing 278.1 grams offence under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, on which Tahrir was sent to police station and FIR was got lodged. filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.39 dated C/29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.02.2025, ASI police officials was on patrolling duty for prevention of crime near railway crossing, bus stand Kaithal, where secret that Vikram @ Kalu son of Daya Ram and Sanjeev son of Ram Kumar, are indulged in selling narcotics tablets near bus stand, Kaithal and Hanuman Vatika, Kaithal and they would come at Randhir Colony, Karnal Road, Kaithal for sale of narcotic tablets to drug addicts and could be pon the said information, notice under Section 42 of NDPS Act was prepared and sent to police station Civil 15 minutes two persons were seen coming on le from the side of Sugar Mill, Kaithal and were apprehended. On the driver of motorcycle disclosed his name Sanjeev son of Ram and pillion rider disclosed his name Vikram @ Kalu son of Daya Ram, resident of Kapil Nagar, Kaithal and he n search of the said polythene, 90 strips of banned tablets i.e. 10 tablets in each strip of Tramadol Hydrochloride 00 mg, Trohma-100 SR were found, which . As such, Vikram @ Kalu and Sanjev by keeping 900 banned narcotic tablets weighing 278.1 grams had committed offence under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, on which Tahrir was sent to police MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-17984 & 01 connected case 4. Learned counsel petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case neither named in the FIR from their conscious and exclusive possession petitioners have been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused, during statement recorded by the police officer under Section would be hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Further co-accused, the alleged recovery. other case under the NDPS Act and are behind the bars since 10 5. Learned State counsel petitioners, which by learned counsel suppliers of the intoxicant, which was recovered from co their complicity is duly proved on record. the fact that the petitioner other evidence against them apart from the disclosure statement accused. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner 10/11.02.2025. Investigatio Cr.P.C. was presented before the take long time. 17984-2025 3 & 01 connected case arned counsel(s) for the petitioner petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case neither named in the FIR (supra) nor any intoxicant tablets were recovered from their conscious and exclusive possession. They further contend that the petitioners have been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements made by accused, during custodial interrogation and it is a tri statement recorded by the police officer under Section would be hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Furthermore, apart from the disclosure statement of re is no other evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged recovery. They submit that the petitioners are other case under the NDPS Act and are behind the bars since 10 earned State counsel produces the custod , which are taken on record. Per contra, by learned counsel(s) for the petitioners on the ground that suppliers of the intoxicant, which was recovered from co their complicity is duly proved on record. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioners are not involved in any other case and there is no r evidence against them apart from the disclosure statement Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. The culpability, if any, would be for the petitioners inter alia contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as they were nor any intoxicant tablets were recovered . They further contend that the petitioners have been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements made by custodial interrogation and it is a trite law that any statement recorded by the police officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would be hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary , apart from the disclosure statement of re is no other evidence to connect the petitioners with the the petitioners are not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and are behind the bars since 10/11.02.2025. produces the custody certificates of the Per contra, he opposes the prayer made on the ground that the petitioners are suppliers of the intoxicant, which was recovered from co-accused, as such, However, he could not controvert s are not involved in any other case and there is no r evidence against them apart from the disclosure statements of co- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioners are behind the bars since The final report under Section 173 concerned Court. Trial of the case is likely to The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-17984 & 01 connected case trial. No useful purpose shall be served by accused/petitioner prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. A two J Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with of punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of c of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as 8. In view of the discussion above, Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, namely, Robin Gupta and Ram Mehar are bail during pendency of the trial, on the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial 9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The 17984-2025 4 & 01 connected case trial. No useful purpose shall be served by accused/petitioners. Keeping the petitioners in further detention prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with of punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of c of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” In view of the discussion above, both the Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, , Robin Gupta and Ram Mehar are ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial, on their furnishing bail the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the in further detention, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. udge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that both are conceptually opposite to each other.” both the petitions are allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioners, ordered to be released on regular furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-17984 & 01 connected case Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own may prejudice the trial. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. May 23, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 17984-2025 5 & 01 connected case Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own may prejudice the trial. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment